No seriously. This is like insect repellant for republicans. Have you ever, in a million years, seen a conservitive on AG? You know, like a die hard, Arizona, John McCain type Conservative?
[quote]Also, everyone talks about how corporations have so much control over the country because they bribe government officials. This happens when the government gets more involved with business. There is less bribery and corruption in the true free market.
It seems to me that there would be less bribery if there were a major overhaul of campaign funding. If the politicians did not need money from the corporations to fund their campaigns to get themselves re-elected then we could do away with corporate lobbyist. If our elected representatives were free of trying to raise money to run for office they might be more inclined to vote with some common sense instead of being bought off by special interests.
I'm a conservative who is neither Republican or Democrat. What conservative means to me is that I think freedom and equality is a right, not a privilege. Government does owe me anything, not an education, not health care, not a job, no handouts. Government is there to protect my freedoms from unfair prosecution, invasion and to provide shots that will protect me from world wide epidemic. Government is there to enact bills that the people want, not what big business wants. Unions were designed to protect the people from unfair wages and cruel working conditions and was the first protection plan that became corrupt. I've heard a lot of BS from the hill, in DC and have watched DC insiders lose their jobs by how they voted. I seen Supreme Court Judges be removed because of how they interpreted the Constitution. There is a lot of ancient corruption in American Government and I'm paying attention to what the Tea Party movement is doing. I learned a long time ago not to judge a politician by their words since they will say anything to be elected. I want to see what the politician does while in office.
I don't trust what either party is saying or doing at this point because everyone is chumming up to the special interest groups with the deepest pockets. As I see it this is the status quo that Obama needs to stop talking about because I don't see him changing that. What I see Obama doing is sharing the wealth. This may sound sweet to teens but not to me, or my generation. The rich are never going to pay more in taxes, period. The rich have always been given carte blanche and always will. The ones who will eventually pay the highest taxes to reduce the largest portion of the national debt is the teenage population of today.
Government in America, since the whigs turned republican, have always stood for big government, welfare instead of workfair and control of the banking industry.
Did Bush seal the fate of the GOP? No, because the grand of party is changing, or so they say in this weeks edition of Time magazine. The Tea Party movement began when "we the people" started hearing the same words spilling out of Obama's mouth just like what Bush said, only worded clearly.
For those of you who think that all conservatives are cut from the same cloth is showing the same amount of ignorance as the ones who lump all Christians into the same church.
I know this is jumping in the deep end a little for a first post... so sorry if I tread on any toes.
Strop, I was curious about your comments regarding education comparative to left/right wing political views. Is that a trend that is generally US specific? I've never heard it put so black and white before.
I'm a conservative. I'm a very strong conservative. I have no political party though, as in my opinion, political parties go against my own political beliefs.
I believe in small government, and large personal and corporate freedom, to a point. Where it starts putting people in danger is where I draw the line.
I'm not sure of what people would consider me yet. I am only a teenager, but as a younger teen I leaned more to the left. Now I'm thinking a little more Libertarian-esque. I believe that you earn what you get and should keep it. Some may call this greed, but keep in mind that it is impossible in this day and age to do everything by yourself. If you work justly and fairly for your pay, then you must have helped others in the process. It may not be straight out giving the money to the government so they can give it to poorer folk, but you're stimulating the economy by exchange of goods, services, and/or money. I believe as long as you're an active member of society, you're a good person in my book.
Now, for rich people and poor people. I believe that rich people should be allowed to have their wealth, but that the government does not (for lack of a better word) favor them as opposed to middle and lower classes, which, unfortunately, does not happen in this day and age, and hasn't happened for a while. I believe that government should treat everyone the same, and it doesn't matter if they treat everyone poorly or well (technically it does, but that's beside the point; if it's a non-dictatorship or non-monarchy, usually impeachment is an option, but back to my point), as long as they treat everyone the same.
I believe that the government does deserve to tax the citizens slightly so that the government can perform the tasks they need to. I also believe in welfare payments, but the recipients should be reviewed and thoroughly processed before receiving payment (meaning the government should make sure they aren't going to use the money unwisely; that the people show signs of future improvement).
I find it a bit ridiculous that America has only 2 political parties, while Canada, Brazil, New Zealand, Taiwan, and many European countries have multi-party political systems, while most of them have a much smaller population and on an international scale are not as influential and (for lack of a better term) "bulky" as the U.S.
Can't join in this really as I have absolutely zero interest in politics and know close to nothing about it
I find it a bit ridiculous that America has only 2 political parties, while Canada, Brazil, New Zealand, Taiwan, and many European countries have multi-party political systems, while most of them have a much smaller population and on an international scale are not as influential and (for lack of a better term) "bulky" as the U.S.
If by that, you mean strict, closed-minded, and non-willingness to perform with trade and immigration? Then no. I'm not trying to say the other countries are less important than the U.S., all I'm saying is that the U.S. is very influential when it comes to international economy and events. That's one thing I dislike about America: it is a large country. It's considered an empire by some. My ideal world would be either an EU-like setup with smaller countries relying on each other sharing the same currency and basic economic structure, or a world run by one government (the latter would certainly cause many problems considering a wide variety of ideas, morals, socio-economic groups, etc. etc.)
I don't really understand what you meant by that statement, could you clarify?
Strop, I was curious about your comments regarding education comparative to left/right wing political views. Is that a trend that is generally US specific?
Yeah, the reason this misconception (and I maintain it is a misconception) about what economic conservative/liberal actually means is so prevalent on AG is because most AGers live in the US. And in the US, "conservative" and "liberal" are umbrella terms that denote archetypes. The connotations of those terms are attached strongly to one's social beliefs, hence wajor59's statement. However where I live (and in several other countries), the word "social progressive" might be a better term to contrast against "social conservative" as progressive means just that: interested in ongoing social reforms, whereas conservative means interested in keeping things the way they are (or regressing to former values).
The way I understand the economic spectrum is this: liberal means liberal with the money, which means whoever gets it can spend it. That's why I understand "economic liberal" to indicate a belief in freemarket capitalism. Also in this way, "Libertarian" means both economically and socially liberal (again see my commentary on Nemo's position).
...you know? It just makes more sense to me to actually use words in the way they're meant to mean!
I'm not that interested in politics, nor will I pretend that my beliefs have any objective value, nor do I believe that defense and declarations of rights are intrinsically good. I'm not interested in discussing politics with others because the strongest, and pretty much the only association with voting lines is demographics. So the only thing I get from talking to somebody about politics, is where they live and how much money their household makes.
For this reason, living in a democratic country, I choose to vote purely for the party which will serve my own best interests, or, as was the unusual case in my electorate this year, the party that would keep the parties that did not serve my best interests out.
I don't really understand what you meant by that statement, could you clarify?
BNP: The BNP seeks to restore the overwhelmingly white ethnicity of Britain that it says existed prior to 1948 through legal means, including "firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home", and the repeal of anti-discrimination legislation. It is ostracised by mainstream political parties in the UK.
You said you wanted more political parties in the US, I was suggesting that more is not always better, like we had the BNP as one. Basically, that if you get more, you might end up with crappy ones like the above.
You said you wanted more political parties in the US, I was suggesting that more is not always better, like we had the BNP as one. Basically, that if you get more, you might end up with crappy ones like the above.
Yeah, but that idea sounds a bit closed-minded. I mean, if the population does want a party such as that to gain power, then so be it, it is democracy. I'm saying that there should be wider options than just Democrat or Republican. Canada has 4 major parties and 5 minor ones. I understand that every politician is a bit different in how they act, but it's the influence in a party as a whole that affects their decisions.
What I'm saying is, I think it'd be more ideal to break the parties down into minor parties, like Canada does. And each new term, the parties that are the least chosen are eliminated from the ballet, until there are 2 or 3 different leaders/parties to choose from. I also think that a Parliamentary government is more efficient as a whole then the setup U.S.A. has.
