1. Home
  2. Off-Topic Discussion

Your Political Ideology Page 18

Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by Vortex
Raw —
OP
Avatar of Vortex

Vortex

Member Seen 6 yrs ago
Darcs said
Booooooooriiiiiiiing!

Firstly Lets keep this civil and not discriminate others because of their beliefs
Darcs said
That will only realistically happen at a town or city level though. When an entire public IS individuals that you distinguish and see, 'murca's too big to ever benefit the entire public. Why shouldn't religion and politics be separate? What about the whole issue of having your citizens essentially becoming debt slaves to a declining imaginary fiat currency based off of a paper fiat currency based off of nothing?I agree that people SHOULD be able to have whatever gunz they want, but why the hell does anyone need a machine gun? I like the idea of cities having their own personal weapon statues.That's really all anyone can ask.That's a slippery slope. What is the scientific measure of "particularly-addictive-drugs-that-render-people-dysfunctional-beyond-reason-need-to-be-controlled" drugs? Neurochemistry, like DNA, is always different, and how people respond to drugs relies on that, environmental factors, personal experiences and opinions, and more chemical and psychological stimuli. Someone's 'meth' could be another person's 'pot' and vice versa-- and this isn't even counting the millions of people with addictions to actions and substances you wouldn't even consider "drugs." You can't cherry pick which drugs are okay, and which drugs aren't. Give adults the options to try whatever it is they want to try and trust that they won't all become addicts.(DMT is pretty great though, I don't see a problem if literally everyone in America was addicted to it, hue hue hue)Why?


I agree with your points, however I am curious as to what you describe yourself as
darkwolf687 said
As for the police, of course. Thats what they are there for, to ensure you do not break the social contract you sign by living in the country, and to help uphold the Crowns end of the agreement


Of that is the polices job then why do we need a monarch to get "protection"?
darkwolf687 said
As for the monarch, well, what have the children of the rich, or even the children of the first world, done but pop out of the right vagina?


Thats why we must have a inheritance tax, children of the privileged should not have to rest on their parents laurels while the children of the less privileged must work hard

darkwolf687 said
Its silly to pretend that the children of the rich arent in a position of power and advantage by luck alone, and that the children of the first world arent at an advantage by luck alone. Luck, I suppose, played a part to be born with this specific genetic pattern, decided by factors outside out control, in a place outside our control, to people and circumstances outside our control. Some are more lucky than others.

What else is it but luck? And what a silly thing to decide who gets to be privileged in society and who is not
darkwolf687 said
Besides, the British Royal Fanily have done a lot for my country since they first took the throne. The House of Windsor has won my respect for what they've done.

Oh? Do tell me what the Monarchy has done that is not because of pressure from the progressiveness that is society or something that could not have been done if we did not have the crown
Revolutionary said
Also, to clarify on one of my views, the church should not be forced to do homosexual marriages. Churches should have that right to choose if they want to, or the state should do homosexual marriages one.


Out of curiosity do you think the Church itself should decide their policy or should it be left to the indivdual pastor/priest/bishop/iman?
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by Yog Sothoth
Raw —

Yog Sothoth

Member Seen 5 yrs ago
Protagonist said
The problem with centrist movements is that they don't necessarily get the best of both worlds. For example, Anarchism and Fascism can both be considered centrist viewpoints. Though this also because the single-axis system doesn't really work, you really need two axis, ala, the political compass.on such a scale, my views fit right here:


I have to completely disagree, anarchists are most definitely not centrists. Anarchists are on the extremes of the political spectrum which is completely against centrists ideals and they don't support the federal government. That's like saying a communist is a capitalist. Centrists are all about taking what they feel is best about both sides of the political spectrum and using them to improve government. Centrists vote for the moderate democrats and moderate republicans.

I am however close to supporting a diverse centrist authoritarian government
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by Yog Sothoth
Raw —

Yog Sothoth

Member Seen 5 yrs ago
Darcs said
Booooooooriiiiiiiing!


How is it boring? I can have a good discussion about my political beliefs
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by darkwolf687
Raw —

darkwolf687

Member Seen 3 mos ago
I never claimed the monarch was needed for protection. In the UK, "The Crown" also refers to state, for instance in a court case "John Doe" decides to sue the country which would be refered to as "The Crown"

As for what the House of Windsor has done (Originally under a different name, of course) It has voluntarily surrendered more and more powers when called for by the people, appointed governors for territories (colonial peroid, though this task was of course shared with parliament) appointed governor generals, intervened in diplomatic processes where need be, been a symbol for the British people, visited the soldiers on the lines (World Wars, paticularly King George in WW2) participated in the creation of the UN (George again, his contributions were small. admitedly) Voluntered to storm the beaches on Normandy (George again, stopped by Churchill, both wanted to go. Some say that George actually volunteered to invoke a "If your going I'm going" sort of thing to stop Churchill going.) Served in the military (a variety of members), participated in charity work, headed the Commonwealth of Nations, trimmed a couple of quid off my taxes, made the UK a fair bit of coin. And generally, they've been dutiful.

They've been good to the country, and the country has been good for them.

As for an inheritance tax, are you proposing to only tax the rich? If only! The rich wont even accept a tax on their houses for lords sake, good luck putting in an inheritance tax; Which doesnt really fix the problen at all and people will just circumvent...

And honestly? Luck plays a massive part in our lives. Some people will be lucky, some wont. That'll never change. There will always be the advantaged, there will always be those who were born undeserving of it but rich, born deserving but poor. The only way to fully change this is to jump in on the extreme ends, which brings its own problems.
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by Yog Sothoth
Raw —

Yog Sothoth

Member Seen 5 yrs ago
I'm sorry if this upsets you DarkWolf but I don't support the European Union and believe that several countries to separate from it
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by Chapatrap
Raw —
Avatar of Chapatrap

Chapatrap Arr-Pee

Member Seen 2 mos ago
Yog Sothoth said
I'm sorry if this upsets you DarkWolf but I don't support the European Union and believe that several countries to separate from it


The European Union is a bureaucratic, neoliberal mess that is almost beyond the point of repair.
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by darkwolf687
Raw —

darkwolf687

Member Seen 3 mos ago
Chapatrap said
The European Union is a bureaucratic, neoliberal mess that is almost beyond the point of repair.


Sadly, this.

I'm in favour of a European super state, though. If the EU were to pull their bloody act together...
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by Vortex
Raw —
OP
Avatar of Vortex

Vortex

Member Seen 6 yrs ago
darkwolf687 said
I never claimed the monarch was needed for protection. In the UK, "The Crown" also refers to state, for instance in a court case "John Doe" decides to sue the country which would be refered to as "The Crown"


"I do of course, also support the responsibilities of the people to the crown. Society is an agreement. You obey the laws, work your hardest and be generally a good person, and you get supported in hard times, protection etc in return"

Could you clarify this?
Also for future reference best not to use "The Crown" and state interchangeably as it may get a little confusing
darkwolf687 said
As for what the House of Windsor has done (Originally under a different name, of course) It has voluntarily surrendered more and more powers when called for by the people, appointed governors for territories (colonial peroid, though this task was of course shared with parliament) appointed governor generals, intervened in diplomatic processes where need be, been a symbol for the British people, visited the soldiers on the lines (World Wars, paticularly King George in WW2) participated in the creation of the UN (George again, his contributions were small. admitedly) Voluntered to storm the beaches on Normandy (George again, stopped by Churchill, both wanted to go. Some say that George actually volunteered to invoke a "If your going I'm going" sort of thing to stop Churchill going.) Served in the military (a variety of members), participated in charity work, headed the Commonwealth of Nations, trimmed a couple of quid off my taxes, made the UK a fair bit of coin. And generally, they've been dutiful.They've been good to the country, and the country has been good for them.


That all sounds like it was done because of the pressure from the public or to boost moral of the common man at war. And as good as some of these things may be why should we keep them around? After all we could have done all of that without their help

As for that George fellow he sounds like a fool. A brave fool, I will give him that but a fool nonetheless.
darkwolf687 said
As for an inheritance tax, are you proposing to only tax the rich? If only! The rich wont even accept a tax on their houses for lords sake, good luck putting in an inheritance tax; Which doesnt really fix the problen at all and people will just circumvent...


Who ever said we get the riches permission? Theres such a thing as "Revolution" you know
darkwolf687 said
And honestly? Luck plays a massive part in our lives. Some people will be lucky, some wont. That'll never change. There will always be the advantaged, there will always be those who were born undeserving of it but rich, born deserving but poor.

That doesn't mean we should not or cant level the playing field
Yog Sothoth said
I'm sorry if this upsets you DarkWolf but I don't support the European Union and believe that several countries to separate from it


Would you like to expand on this?
darkwolf687 said
Sadly, this.I'm in favour of a European super state, though. If the EU were to pull their bloody act together...


Why just go Europe? Thats fairly underachieving of you. Let us go for the whole world
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by darkwolf687
Raw —

darkwolf687

Member Seen 3 mos ago
You can argue that we could have done it without them isnt inherently true. In war, morale is very important. Would we replace them with a president? A man who the majority of the country will have voted again and will despise? Even less people like Britains elected officials than like the monarchy, good luck uniting the people behind a president...

As for a brave fool, I have in my time come to the conclusion that a brave and honoirable fool is better than a wise man. The wise seem to endlessly plan each others dimise

As for a revolution, I hope you arent serious. Very few revolutions with noble goals have ever ended in happiness. and more often lots of sorrow. A revolution may be the only way to "even the playing field", but it will end in another uneven field. This is the invariably truth of humanity, we'll just be wasting time.

Why just go Europe? Because at the moment thats realistic. I can say "The entire Earth should be united" until the cows come home, but to unite a planet you must first unite a continent.

Put it this was; The tribes of Great Britain were transitory componants into the old kingdoms, which were transition states into England, Scotland etc, which were transition states into the UK, which is a transition state into the EU, which will be a transition state into a UE.
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by Vortex
Raw —
OP
Avatar of Vortex

Vortex

Member Seen 6 yrs ago
darkwolf687 said
You can argue that we could have done it without them isnt inherently true. In war, morale is very important. Would we replace them with a president? A man who the majority of the country will have voted again and will despise? Even less people like Britains elected officials than like the monarchy, good luck uniting the people behind a president...


Moral? Pah! Troops know what they got themselves into and they should be willing to fight for whatever reason they joined. Although Britian did have Conscription at the time no? Well in that case the task of keeping the troops in order are of even greater importance to the commander

And anyway other countries without monarchs seem to do just fine, are you Brits that reliant on your Monarch that you would lose all hope if they left you?
darkwolf687 said
As for a brave fool, I have in my time come to the conclusion that a brave and honoirable fool is better than a wise man. The wise seem to endlessly plan each others dimise


Both the brave and the foolish die because of recklessness, or as some like to say "courage", on the frontlines. Better is the wise or the cowardly who actuallly live
darkwolf687 said
As for a revolution, I hope you arent serious. Very few revolutions with noble goals have ever ended in happiness. and more often lots of sorrow. A revolution may be the only way to "even the playing field", but it will end in another uneven field. This is the invariably truth of humanity, we'll just be wasting time.

Thats because most revolutions did not have the right prerequisites unlike what Britian has today, a "advamced" Capitalistic economy, reliance on other countires for resources and trade, more Economic crisis's coming at a greater pace, and as always, disatisfaction with the system

And what is this other uneven playing field?

As for wasting time, I must wholeheartedly disagree
darkwolf687 said
Why just go Europe? Because at the moment thats realistic. I can say "The entire Earth should be united" until the cows come home, but to unite a planet you must first unite a continent.Put it this was; The tribes of Great Britain were transitory componants into the old kingdoms, which were transition states into England, Scotland etc, which were transition states into the UK, which is a transition state into the EU, which will be a transition state into a UE.

Well of course. I never said we have to do it all in one fell swoop.
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by darkwolf687
Raw —

darkwolf687

Member Seen 3 mos ago
Vortex said
Moral? Pah! Troops know what they got themselves into and they should be willing to fight for whatever reason they joined. Although Britian did have Conscription at the time no? Well in that case the task of keeping the troops in order are of even greater importance to the commanderAnd anyway other countries without monarchs seem to do just fine, are you Brits reliant on your Monarch that you would lose all hope if they left you?Both the brave and the foolish die because of recklessness, or as some like to say "courage", on the frontlines. Better is the wise or the cowardly who actuallly liveThats because most revolutions did not have the right prerequisites unlike what Britian has today, a "advamced" Capitalistic economy, reliance on other countires for resources and trade, more Economic crisis's coming at a greater pace, and as always, disatisfaction with the systemAnd what is this other uneven playing field? As for wasting time, I must wholeheartedly disagreeWell of course. I never said we have to do it all in one fell swoop.


They did fine, eh?

WW1: Russia left the war during the revolution, America only actual joined battle for half a year despite having officially been at war for over a year (Though I'd say this was more greed) and the French had to set up machine guns facing away from the Germans because so many of their soldiers kept running away.

WW2: The French surrendered, Russians only fought because Stalin was worse (In fact, many towns in Western Russia at first thanked the Germans for conquering them and didnt resist) The Chinese collapsed into a civil war, the USA only joined half way through and got their arse handed to them until they swallowed their pride and joined up with the British and Frew French (I am of course reffering to Africa... Where the American soldiers ran away in their first battles). The Germans and Italians lost the war.

I that they did fine.

Right, and when the revolution starts you expect the world to be fine with such? Oh, and the people will win? This is the 21st century, now more than ever rich people have the advantage.

And the other uneven playing field? So you know, France after the French revolution and Russia after the October revolution all ended up so even, right?
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by Darcs
Raw —
Avatar of Darcs

Darcs Madama Witch

Member Seen 3 mos ago
darkwolf687 said They did fine, eh?

WW1: Russia left the war during the revolution, America only actual joined battle for half a year despite having officially been at war for over a year (Though I'd say this was more greed) and the French had to set up machine guns facing away from the Germans because so many of their soldiers kept running away.


Less greed, more "Germany is violating too many trade deals, attacking innocent ships, trying to get out ally and neighbor (Mexico) to attack us and trying to take over Europe from countries we had generally warm relations with.

Also, boots on the ground are great and everything, but having a source raw materials and supplies are incredibly important to winning a war, you can be mad that America profited off of the sales it conducted, but don't pretend those sales didn't play a vital role.

darkwolf687 said WW2: The French surrendered


They totally didn't though, France never stopped fighting.

darkwolf687 said Russians only fought because Stalin was worse (In fact, many towns in Western Russia at first thanked the Germans for conquering them and didnt resist)


True. Though, they also fought because "muh Polska, muh Eastern Bloc"

darkwolf687 said The Chinese collapsed into a civil war


It was less "shit let's fight each other" and more "OH NO JAPAN IS #RECKING US OUT OF NOWHERE WHAT DO WE DO?" Cities were razed and Japanese militants, without supervision, did some sick things to the Chinese population. Don't marginalize their sacrifice and contribution, they never stopped fighting either.

Also Korea didn't escape unscathed, never4get

darkwolf687 said the USA only joined half way through and got their arse handed to them until they swallowed their pride and joined up with the British and Frew French (I am of course reffering to Africa... Where the American soldiers ran away in their first battles).


Way to completely ignore the airmen who dominated the American and Canadian contributions to the African theatre. Why do people always forget about the Tuskegee airmen? They OWNED the American east African campaign.

Not only that, but Italy was constantly being kicked out of east Africa, especially by Ethiopia (I should add they maintained complete independence even during the scramble for Africa). It's unfair to say American's "ran away," more that we helped, but we really weren't needed, no one was. Italy just can't beat Ethiopia, 2independent4them.

--Also, what about the Pacific Campaign? Russia had not 50 years prior lost a war to Glorious Nippon, if they managed to make their way through China to Russia the war would have been very different.

darkwolf687 said The Germans and Italians lost the war.


*and Japanese and Romanians and Latvians

darkwolf687 said I that they did fine.


Everyone except Romanians.

darkwolf687 said Right, and when the revolution starts you expect the world to be fine with such? Oh, and the people will win? This is the 21st century, now more than ever rich people have the advantage.


You both have a point, this is the 21st century, widespread desire for revolution has grown complacent, and the last major groups for social change (The Black Panthers, '70's/and the Anarchists of the early 20th century) have all but died out. Still, to say people hold 0 power is a broad assumption to make. I mean, "rich" is only a relative term, all it takes is a large enough group of people no longer accepting the technically worthless fiat currency.

darkwolf687 said And the other uneven playing field? So you know, France after the French revolution and Russia after the October revolution all ended up so even, right?


Uhh, the Paris Commune? That shit worked great while it lasted, as did the Catalonian Autonomous Anarchistic zone post Spanish Civil war. Emma Goldman considered it a successful example of Anarchism in action. Hell, even Haiti post-revolution would have been boss if France hadn't fucked them over.

With all of these things it's always some larger entity pressuring the smaller entity to cave in.
[+]
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by Vortex
Raw —
OP
Avatar of Vortex

Vortex

Member Seen 6 yrs ago
darkwolf687 said
They did fine, eh? WW1: Russia left the war during the revolution, America only actual joined battle for half a year despite having officially been at war for over a year (Though I'd say this was more greed) and the French had to set up machine guns facing away from the Germans because so many of their soldiers kept running away.


Russia left the war because Lenin saw that it was a war of Imperial powers and not a war of the common (Russian) man. It would have been a bit silly of him after campaigning for so long against the Imperial Empires to go help fight for them

Murica had a isolationist policy and so they tried to stay out of the European wars as much as possible because they wanted to cash in as much as possible. And then, as Darcs pointed out, Germany began to attack trade routes important to Murica and so of course they needed to defend their wealth.

And Call me a coward but I too would run at the sight of machine guns
darkwolf687 said
WW2: The French surrendered, Russians only fought because Stalin was worse (In fact, many towns in Western Russia at first thanked the Germans for conquering them and didnt resist) The Chinese collapsed into a civil war, the USA only joined half way through and got their arse handed to them until they swallowed their pride and joined up with the British and Frew French (I am of course reffering to Africa... Where the American soldiers ran away in their first battles). The Germans and Italians lost the war. I that they did fine.


The french didnt surrender, they were invaded and had to go Guerrilla, have you not heard of Charles de Gaulle and the Resistance?

While the Old Imperial Powers of Europe were fighting amongst themselves Stalin had almost re carved the entire Old Tsardom of Russia and even a little more. This meant that he had a border with Germany and so things began to get a little tense as neither Hitler nor Stalin liked having a Superpower on their doorstep. And so Stalin was willing to help the allies in order to remove Hitler. Then Hitler done a deal with Stalin convincing him that they could share Europe, But then Hitler betrayed Stalin and so Stalin hid in his office for about ten days (no joke) and then hit back in full force.

When a foreign power has invaded you and your country has a weak, divided and old fashioned form of Government your country is also likely to fall in Chaos

Whats your point aboot America?
darkwolf687 said
(In fact, many towns in Western Russia at first thanked the Germans for conquering them and didnt resist)

Oh really? Can i see a Source? Not that i doubt you I'm simply curious about it
darkwolf687 said
Right, and when the revolution starts you expect the world to be fine with such? Oh, and the people will win? This is the 21st century, now more than ever rich people have the advantage.And the other uneven playing field?


The world may not be fine but it will be better than it is now. There may be more rich than ever before who are are more powerful than ever before but the people have a advantage, numbers. Of course numbers alone cannot win a war but as the rich use more extreme measures to protect their wealth the numbers of the Revolution will grow
darkwolf687 said
So you know, France after the French revolution and Russia after the October revolution all ended up so even, right?


Like I said before most, if not all, Revolutions in the past have not had the correct Prerequisites
Darcs said
Everyone except Romanians.


Has history ever been nice to Romania?
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by darkwolf687
Raw —

darkwolf687

Member Seen 3 mos ago
I apologise, I didnt mean to pretend the arms didnt assist, the 1st world war would have played out differently if they hadn't, but they are profiteerimg rather than assisting. It doesnt require morale to profit off others misery.

Source? Do you need a source for that? Its commonly accepted that when the Germans first arrived, paticularly in Ukraine, they were first seen as liberators, until the people realised the Germans were even worse than Stalin. Better the devil you know lol

And sorry, but the French officially surrendered. The Free French were actually more dangerous in Africa, as I acknowledged further down. The French officially surrendered and half their homeland was occupied for most of the war, that was my point.

In regards to people having a numbers advantage, thats all well and good until the people realise its hard to buy goods and equipment on bravado. In the modern world, you can kill a man from a bunker some thousand miles away. Its an unwinable fight, in which many innocent people will be caught up and killed, be it by overzealous revolutionaries or the careless killings of those with the guns and the cash. The UK has 64 million people, many of which would not support the revolution or would start revolutions of their own.
As for the correct pre requistes, I would argue Britain lacks the pre-requisites you claim. Britain is primarily a service based economy. Now, hows that going to work out when the country collapses into a civil war? And although Britain has a strong industry too in some respects, who will the trade partner be? America? They'll never touch a revolutionary Britain with a barge pole. The EU? They wont want to risk fanning the flames.
Oh, and then Northern Ireland will probably start up its own revolution (The loyalists claim loyalty to the monarch, not parliament, and the nats want out anyway) the die hard SNPers in Scotland would seize the chance and secede.
The new state would be in taters already, with huge chunks dropping off and a DOA economy.
It just wouldnt work. Even if it succeeded (at massive cost of life, and international prestige, likely having unforseen consequences... I cant imagine the majority of the overses territories remaining British in that scenario, and I can't imagine the commonwealth surviving one of its keystone members and its "mother" going through such a disaster, though its possible they'd toss Britain out or suspend it. Likewise, the EU would take another massive blow etc) the surviving state would be in complete shambles. And when its complete shambles, here come the cut backs. I wonder whether Britain would actually end up further to the right as a result, the socialist like policies of the UK couldnt survive economic collapse. I imagine the people would feel cheated, and that kind of atmosphere could potentially result in further instability and rebellion.
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by Revolutionary
Raw —
Avatar of Revolutionary

Revolutionary Darksteel

Member Seen 30 days ago
Vortex said
Firstly Lets keep this civil and not discriminate others because of their beliefs I agree with your points, however I am curious as to what you describe yourself asOf that is the polices job then why do we need a monarch to get "protection"?Thats why we must have a inheritance tax, children of the privileged should not have to rest on their parents laurels while the children of the less privileged must work hardWhat else is it but luck? And what a silly thing to decide who gets to be privileged in society and who is notOh? Do tell me what the Monarchy has done that is not because of pressure from the progressiveness that is society or something that could not have been done if we did not have the crownOut of curiosity do you think the Church itself should decide their policy or should it be left to the indivdual pastor/priest/bishop/iman?


Obviously the Catholic Church as an entirety is most likely to make a decision as a single unit, but Protestant churches will almost definitely make individual decisions. I'm cool with both, as long as Big Brother doesn't butt in.
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by Darcs
Raw —
Avatar of Darcs

Darcs Madama Witch

Member Seen 3 mos ago
Vortex said Has history ever been nice to Romania?


hue hue hue
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by Dinh AaronMk
Raw —
Avatar of Dinh AaronMk

Dinh AaronMk my beloved (french coded)

Member Seen 7 days ago
Anarcholiberalconservative-democraticmonarchistfascistsocialist-marxistcommunisttumblritepolster-traditionalathenian-FrancorepublicanImperialism with a touch of trade-unionistmoralist-secularist trimmings. With maybe some Judeoislamsoarastrianism and Kurdish leanings.
Hidden 10 yrs ago → 10 yrs ago Post by TheMadAsshatter
Raw —
Avatar of TheMadAsshatter

TheMadAsshatter Guess who's back

Member Seen 2 yrs ago
I see this thread has been ded for awhile. Allow me to change that, since I'm having a brief moment of clarity in my political views. What would I call myself? I don't know, neo-pseudo-libertarian-centralist-anarchist-neutral party, I really don't know, and I don't care. My political ideology is versatile and fluid, thus I will not say I subscribe to any one particular mindset. If I had to say, I would go with moderate libertarian, but I don't know for sure if that's what I'd be called. **Government:** To keep it brief, the less it's involved in the lives of the people, aside from enforcing the law, collecting taxes, and keeping up with environmental regulations, the better. **Taxes:** The tax code, at least in the US is in DIRE FUCKING NEED OF SIMPLIFICATION!!! Holy shit, it's like trying to read a language that hasn't been conceived yet. Until that's happened, I'm not even going to begin to try to make sense of what's going on with that. **Religion:** This is more a societal thing than anything that the government can control, but I like the way most of Scandinavia does it. Religion should be considered a private matter, one that is generally thought of as rude to bring up in casual conversation. A friend of mine had a great analogy for how religion should be treated. It's like genitalia. If you have it, cool, but you don't show pictures of your swampy bits to everyone you know and tell them yours is the best. Other than that, yeah complete separation of church and state. **Defense:** Do I think our defense budget needs to be cut? When it rivals the next three countries' defense budgets combined, yes, but it is generally a good idea to have a strong military in case things do go tits-up. I'd say keep our defense budget about 1/3 higher than the next country's. **Education:** BIGGEST PRIORITY! Seriously, tuition rates in the US are rivaled only by the UK, I'm pretty sure. That shit needs to change, along with the public schooling curriculum throughout primary and secondary school. And also, stop making it a requirement to say the pledge of allegiance during school, Jesus H Christ! **Guns:** As far as ownership, I think you should be allowed to own whatever guns you can under current laws in most of the US, minus fully-automatic weapons and anything bigger than a .50 cal. What I would change is that you would have to take a safety course and gain a license for owning a firearm of any type, along with a psych evaluation to determine whether you are capable of harming yourself and others. If you pass the requirements, you get a license, guaranteed. As for registration... I would say yes, but look what happened in every country occupied by Nazi Germany in WWII. They had records of people who owned guns, and the Nazis used them to either confiscate the guns or kill the owners. **Healthcare:** Mental healthcare specifically needs to see a big improvement, in my opinion, along with the way people in general perceive mental health issues. As for healthcare in general, the only fair way I see healthcare working is if it's funded completely by taxes. You don't have to worry about insurance companies fucking you over a table, and it's always there if you need it. Those who need it use it, those who don't won't. **Business:** Aside from safety and health standards, small business needs to be left the hell alone. Same with big business, with the addition of preventing monopolies or oligopolies from forming. Bailouts? Fuck 'em, if a company goes under it goes under. It was their own damn fault somehow, anyways. **Abortion:** Ehhh... I'm a bit torn on this myself. I lean towards the school of thought that there comes a point when an unborn child goes from a weird blob of cells to a living being, and until that point, abortion is fair game. The bad thing is there's no good way to judge that, so as a general rule, I would say anytime before 15 weeks is okay to have an abortion regardless of the circumstances. After that, your time is up, and you're having the damn kid unless it threatens your life. **Same-Sex Marriage:** I fully support gay marriage, but for the sake of neutrality, I'll say that the government should stay out of it completely. There are plenty of religious institutions that support gay marriage, just make sure you pick one of them when you plan your wedding. **Drugs n Shit:** Pot? Sure, make it legal, but treat it like an alcohol/tobacco hybrid. Gotta be 18 to buy it, don't drive stoned, and you can only smoke it on your own property or in places that specifically allow it. Also, bring the drinking age down to 18, along with (on a slightly unrelated note) stupid 21 year old requirements for jobs and shit, FFS! I'm sure there are other things I can delve into, but that hits on all of the big issues, I'm pretty sure.
Hidden 10 yrs ago → 10 yrs ago Post by HeySeuss
Raw —
Avatar of HeySeuss

HeySeuss DJ Hot Carl

Member Seen 2 mos ago
I'll play. - Abortion – Pro-choice. Easy shot for me. - Bureaucracy – Lots of people say, 'cut it' as a simple answer. “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. “ - H.L. Mencken. The reality is that it's more complex than that and cuts need to be considered more carefully than 'kill 'em all.' - Campaign finance reform/Corruption laws/Term Limits – All measures to make politicians (I refer specifically to Congreasemen and Senawhores here) less beholden to money and more beholden to voters. In fact, this is the first thing that must be done before trying to address any other problems in our system with a prayer of doing so effectively. You will see how this perception colors my responses to everything else below. - Defense – My response to this is similar to the fears given in Eisenhower's speech upon leaving the White House in 1960; the military-industrial complex has become so large and pervasive that it is literally dug in at the level of congressional districts – cutting it back means cutting jobs and no congressman will do that. At the same time, the need for foreign export sales to keep these companies aloft means that it becomes a factor in our foreign policy. We should be accordingly very wary of not the military, but who and where we sell arms to, as that has consequences. Cut back? Not necessarily. But spend wisely. - Economics – Ideally, an economy circulates money. I do not see that happening here, nor has it happened for decades. Slowly, the consumer market demand has been drained and that is what fuels new markets for new companies to exploit. Of course, it is not just one policy or one element of society responsible for this pooling of money in one place (investment capital stimulation has been the defacto governing philosophy since the 1970's when it was first done to redress imbalances created from prior policymaking that favored Keynesian approaches) but my mantra here is to consider all the tools at ones disposal to make the economy work the way it's supposed to. Not all problems are nails to be hammered. As to businesses specifically, I do not believe in bailing them out. It should not be necessary. The problem is that we have people in elected office flying top cover for these guys and keeping the competition squeezed. One of these mechanisms is how they tax businesses. See more below. - Environmental – Quite frankly, regulation is a mess here, but see more on government. When congressmen are industry lobbyists not even interested in making the system work, of course the system's going to be pretty dysfunctional. - Foreign policy – “Walk softly and carry a big stick.” - Theodore Roosevelt. - Government – Despite the prevailing opinion that all government is incompetent, there are certain things that only the federal government can effectively do; regulation of banks and other entities that span more than one state, for example, as well as the funding of scientific research (and education) at a university level that produces advances in theoretical physics like we had in the 1930's, when such things were funded. We'd be having this conversation auf Deutsch without that sort of thing, and a strong scientific education and research community within the US translates to innovations produced in the US. Eventually, jobs and money. The problem with government is that it's easy to give it a bad reputation – there are groups that go out of their way to undermine government regulation and make it look hapless and then trumpet this as a self-made prophecy. It's hard to fight industry lobbyists spending a lot of money to sabotage government and then argue that government isn't working. By lobbyists, I mean 'bought congressmen.' - Healthcare – In favor of more comprehensive reforms than the ACA; public option with the private insurers doing supplemental policies, which is what we already have for people over 65 and works in every developed world nation worthy of the name except America...except we do it too. The reality is that under the status quo ante, people went bankrupt from medical bills and then went on medicaid to pay for treatment for conditions at their acute (and most expensive) stage. The taxpayer was assuming the risk for the pool that way. The ACA is an imperfect restructuring from that which didn't go far enough because it was undermined by insurance industry lobbyists in both parties. - Immigration -- In favor of reform that forces companies hiring under the table, particularly large ones, to follow the law. Much of the reason we have illegal immigration is a strong demand for cheap labor. The hiring of illegals drives down wages for everyone and harms the economy. Legal immigration, however, is a good thing and we need to expand the options. - Same Sex Marriage - the spirit of the 14th amendment applies here, to me. Also, Loving vs. Virginia, in 1967, pretty much ruled against banning interracial marriage and seems to very much pave the way that two citizens of age ought to have a right to a civil marriage license. Religion can do what it wants in refusing marriages of course, but they shouldn't be dictating who the government grants marriage status to. And it sounds like judges finally see it that way as well. Personally, I was against voting on someone else's rights, but voted 'yes' to a Referendum here in Maryland in 2012 to grant people of the same sex the right to marry. Besides repealing DOMA, this unexpected referendum win turned the tide. - Taxes – See the tax rates as they existed in the 1950's. I don't think we need to go back to that, but we do need to get back to a progressive tax rate. Also, as big industry lobbyists bitch about the tax rate in America, bear in mind the difference between a statutory and effective rate. That's crucial; the point here is that the small businessman pays the effective (which is onerous) but the big boys pay a very different effective rate because they employ every means at their disposal to lower the bill. Also, as unpleasant as this is to say to a rich person, I'd cap social security payments but not cap social security deductions. I'm sorry someone's taking it in the ass over that, but at least it's not young entrepreneurs having to pay ungodly rates for their mandatory health insurance, but someone that can take that hit.
Hidden 10 yrs ago Post by The Patriarch
Raw —
Avatar of The Patriarch

The Patriarch The Champion of Men

Member Seen 5 yrs ago
I'm pro government and while I do believe in a separation of church and state, I believe that the government should respect the laws of religion and don't undermine their laws. I believe that the main problems with our government is that people are immature and use emotional tantrums as their arguments, also people don't compromise anymore which is a killer to democracy. If it was up to me I would have a diverse authoritarian government with a rational head. I absolutely hate social justice warriors, they are among the main causes for screwing up democracy and are the new crusaders. I do not support communism and firmly believe that communism can never survive on its. I believe in responsible capitalism in which we have a capitalistic system but there is regulation to help get rid of some of the cons. I don't like to call myself conservative, but I am a traditionalist and I most definitely not liberal. In my opinions both ubber liberals and ultra conservatives are ruining effective governments.
↑ Top
© 2007-2024
BBCode Cheatsheet