Political affiliation?

[madame_zora]

It's funny how most of the people who have chimed in here, who have read the constitution tend to describe ourselves as socially permissive and fiscally reserved. While there are restraints on the edgea of both categories, I believe that is what seems to be what our forefathers were trying to establish. The right wing has not damaged the constitution yet, but they have disregarded it. That America has allowed it to happen is more a result of apathy, that most insideous form of self interest. As long as whether "my life is fine" is all that determines whether or not we stand up for our principles, we will be victims to opportunists like the ones who have crept their way into our political systems.

"Career politicians" are a scourge on our society. ANY govrenment position, INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT should receive as comensation the median wage for the American working public, not one dollar more. We have people legislating our lives who do not participate in them at all any longer. Until REAL AMERICANS are governing for America, greed will win out, because WE won't stop it. Our forefathers would be disgusted.

 

[Jeffin90620]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DC_DEEP
I'm a little more complex than the offered categories. Fiscally, I'm very conservative. Socially, I'm very liberal leaning toward radical.

I was under the impression that that is what libertarianism is ... which is what I am ... :biggrin1:

Libertarians believe that government does more harm than good. Some Libertarians would not support a government agency to monitor the purity of food and water, nor the efficacy of drugs purported to treat disease. A Libertarian certainly would not support a welfare state (which allows the government to take money from people who earn it and give it to people the government thinks deserve it).

See a more in-depth description at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian

Still think you are Libertarian?

 

[hypolimnas]

It would be interesting to know the where most members of lpsg are on the political scale.

My mother was technically an Anarchist, my father was a Marxist. I try to be less dogmatic and I prefer to be more pragmatic, humanist, liberal and green. I come from a very eccentric family (some extreme liberals and some extreme capitalists), I regard myself as one of the more mainstream, possibly mistakenly.

Btw, does the poll indicate that liberals are more "equipped"? LOL!

 

[B_IanTheTall]

I'm fiscally conservative.
Centrist on aspects of welfare, immigration, and defense.
Socially moderately to very liberal. (Stay out of my bedroom unless your ass is sticking in the air and lubed or your legs are spread wide and your pussy is moist.)

 

[DC_DEEP]

...

(Stay out of my bedroom unless your ass is sticking in the air and lubed or your legs are spread wide and your pussy is moist.)

Can I interpret that as an invitation?

 

[that_other_guy]

Still think you are Libertarian?

yup ... I'm still for the FDA though (but they need work ... they're a bloated bureaucracy who take years to get anything done it seems ... but they need to exist)

but yes ... I still think that I'm a Libertarian :smile:

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

I stick with an agressively neutral stance. It gives me the opportunity to call everyone fuckwits, fucktards and "fucking will you fuck me already!"

I believe that there is a grain of truth in every ideaology, but that there is far too much effort spent with people arguing over "OMFG! YOU LEFTIE!" then actually considering whether the action is a good idea.

Consider: We may find Sharia law repulsive in it's attitude to Burkhas, but have you seen their women?!?! Cover up! And never take it off dammit!

 

[DC_DEEP]

I stick with an agressively neutral stance. It gives me the opportunity to call everyone fuckwits, fucktards and "fucking will you fuck me already!"

I believe that there is a grain of truth in every ideaology, but that there is far too much effort spent with people arguing over "OMFG! YOU LEFTIE!" then actually considering whether the action is a good idea.

Consider: We may find Sharia law repulsive in it's attitude to Burkhas, but have you seen their women?!?! Cover up! And never take it off dammit!

Ah, orca, beneath the burkha, some of them are breathtakingly beautiful. Some of the middle-east men are beautiful, too. But as a good (straight female) friend of mine once said in reference to Omar Sharif, "Yeah, they are beautiful in their youth, but after the years go by, they always look like old arabs."

I guess the best description of my political leanings would be "staunch constitutionalist."

 

[Shelby]

All over the road (sometimes I'm not even on the damn thing).

 

[DaveyR]

I would describe myself as pretty Liberal. I have it on good authority though that some of my former Employees have described me as "slightly to the right of Attila the hun":smile:

 

[madame_zora]

I stick with an agressively neutral stance. It gives me the opportunity to call everyone fuckwits, fucktards and "fucking will you fuck me already!"

I believe that there is a grain of truth in every ideaology, but that there is far too much effort spent with people arguing over "OMFG! YOU LEFTIE!" then actually considering whether the action is a good idea.

Consider: We may find Sharia law repulsive in it's attitude to Burkhas, but have you seen their women?!?! Cover up! And never take it off dammit!

You fucking fuckwit- how the fuck are you?

Nobody gives a fuck about the issues anymore, only who's "right". Ego is the bane of America- I hope we will follow the lead of our elder statesman, Great Britian, when we lose our position as world leader, which can't happen fast enough for me. Britian has managed to maintain a quiet dignity, I doubt we'll take our lumps so gracefully.

Someone was pissing and moaning earlier (might not have been this thread) about why the women of this board weren't more outraged about the treatment of women in the Islamic countries, so I'll sum it up succinctly (for me). I'm not outraged because I don't care. Neither does anyone else, really. Who EVER cares about another nation's social issues, when that is really their realm? When those women get mad enough about wearing burkhas, they can start burning them. Many will be put to death, and eventually customs will change to adapt to social demands. It works the same way everywhere, I don't recall a foreign nation coming to the US to enforce MY rights here as a woman, I don't see it as the position of one country to be the police force of the world. So MY countrymen are dying to give Iraqis rights they are not even asking for and are unwilling (and yes, unable) to fight for on their own.
I don't see that as a good trade. I don't care how hawt those bitches might be under their mu-mus.

 

[JustAsking]

Economic Left/Right -6.0
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian -6.0

Is anyone surprised? I think there are great social needs and great injustices that can only be solved by huge institutions with the economies of scale to do that. The default choice of the Democrats for this is the Gov't.

But I only agree with that choice because I can't think of any other institution that would do that on so large a scale. I personally think the Gov't does a bad job of this stuff usually, although I agree with the intent and the need. Besides doing a bad job of it, the only means they have is coercion through lots of laws. On that issue, I could look like an old fashioned Republican (because that doesnt mean the same thing these days), because I don't like big gov't and lots of laws.

 

[Gharbad]

I'm a little more complex than the offered categories. Fiscally, I'm very conservative. Socially, I'm very liberal leaning toward radical.

You're not as complex as you'd like to think. :wink: With views like that, you're a perfect fit into the "libertarian" category.

Edit: Sorry, didn't read deep enough before I posted that. The threads-within-threads thing still needs a lot of getting used to for me.

 

[dcwrestlefan]

I don't care how hawt those bitches might be under their mu-mus.

I would pay so much money to see you in a mu-mu.

Toodles. DC.

 

[headbang8]

I personally think the Gov't does a bad job of this stuff usually, although I agree with the intent and the need. .

The United States government does a bad job of almost everything. Other governments around the world do such an excellent job of providing services; often, they can sell their service organisations at a profit. (And then watch the private sector fuck it up.)

Good government? The RCMP. Scotland Yard. The BBC. QANTAS. The Commonwealth Bank of Australia. British Telecom. The Japanese Post Office. Anything in Singapore. MI5. New Zealand Public Health. The Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits System/Medicare. The TGV. The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The South Australian Housing Trust. The State of Alaska. Goddammit, British Rail, come back: All is forgiven.

In a fit of ideological purity, the Australian state of Victoria sold all its public utilities--electricity, gas, railways, even some roads. Guess what? Costs went up and service standards went down. Do any of you Melburnians remember the gasless fortnight in 1999 (from memory)?

You're right, Just Asking (as you generally are). Only government has the scale and patient capital for large scale projects that enhance the public good (and often allow private enterprise to make a profit through using the infrastructure).

Part of the reason for so much inefficiency in US government is that, for historical reasons, we have so many layers and divisions. For example, in most countries, the police are employed at a national or state/provincil level. In the USA, every tiny burgh has to pay for a police department, as well as funding a share of state police and the feds.

In NYC, I pay federal, state and city income tax, as well as state and city sales tax. In Australia, I signed a check for ONE tax bill to the federal government, and ONE goods and services tax, and the feds distributed the cash. Much more efficient. When I moved to the USA, I wrung my hands in greedy anticipation of a lower federal income tax rate; little did I know that I'd be paying just as much in New York and getting poorer services.

I have written in this forum before: why do Americans pay so much tax and put up with such low standards of public services? It ain't civilised.

 

[headbang8]

Ego is the bane of America- I hope we will follow the lead of our elder statesman, Great Britian, when we lose our position as world leader, which can't happen fast enough for me. Britian has managed to maintain a quiet dignity, I doubt we'll take our lumps so gracefully.

Shut tha faaaaak up! My opinion is goddamn as good as yours, and don't you forget it. I don't have to prove a thing. If it don't make sense to you, or to anybody, or it don't make sense AT ALL, that ain't the point. It's my opinion and you can't shut me up. This is America, not goddamn communist Russia. Hang on...some douchebag fucktard wants equal time. He's trying to shut me the fuck up so he can have his say. Listen to him, he's full o' shit. Who the hell does he think he is? Fucking smartass motherfucker! Where'd I put my gun?

When those women get mad enough about wearing burkhas, they can start burning them... It works the same way everywhere, I don't recall a foreign nation coming to the US to enforce MY rights here as a woman, I don't see it as the position of one country to be the police force of the world. So MY countrymen are dying to give Iraqis rights they are not even asking for and are unwilling (and yes, unable) to fight for on their own.
I don't see that as a good trade. I don't care how hawt those bitches might be under their mu-mus.

Hey Madge Zee! You're on FIRE tonight! Dish us up some more of that.

Headbang8
Mildly Buzzed on Stella Artois

 

[madame_zora]

Have I told you guys lately that I love you? *gets horny, even knowing most of the guys are gay*

Headbang, I almost fell for your rhetoric until I read the "get my gun" part- I was preparing for attack. Now I feel thwarted since you were in fact agreeing, can we start an argument about something else?

DC, I think doubleteaming JA is long overdue. You bring the popsicle sticks and I'll bring the whipped cream and pineapple rings, okay? We'll save the duct tape and electrodes for next time.

Dcwrestlefan, I am so strapped for cash that I would happily don a mu-mu for your delight- make me an offer I can't refuse.



As for any of the atrocities that are occuring worldwide, the thing that pisses me off is NOT that the people are unworthy of support, but that WE only offer support when there is a profit in it for us. Now, I don't mind seeing to our own well being, but it disgusts me when we wave the banner of "freedom" without acknowledging our own motives. Surely there are people right now in circumstances just as bad as Iraq if not much worse for whom we are doing nothing. I doubt that the women in North Korea have it all that great either, but I guess I'm not supposed to give a fuck about them.

I would like to see abuses of human rights being brought before the UN, not the US. When bush snubbed the UN he lost the respect of many other world leaders, as well as the people here at home that actually know enough about what's going on to understand that our global image is important. We are not cowboys in the world, and people are less and less impressed with us. You fuckwits who say you don't care about what the other nations think will be chanting that mantra to yourselves when we become the property of some other nation who was better at networking than we have been of late. My guess is that there are probably a lot of civilised nations who would be incensed enough to move for change if the good ol' US of A wasn't always up to it's bullshit about shoving through every bit of self-interest laden legislation imaginable when we go in to "help". Why do "they" hate us? It's really a big fucking mystery, isn't it?

 

[headbang8]

Is anyone surprised? I think there are great social needs and great injustices that can only be solved by huge institutions with the economies of scale to do that. The default choice of the Democrats for this is the Gov't.

But I only agree with that choice because I can't think of any other institution that would do that on so large a scale. I personally think the Gov't does a bad job of this stuff usually, although I agree with the intent and the need. Besides doing a bad job of it, the only means they have is coercion through lots of laws.

You've piqued my memory, Just Asking.

One of the world's great government success stories actually comes from the Australian state of Victoria. Through one of the few state enterprises it didn't sell off--the Transport Accident Commission.

Some years ago, the State of Victoria handled personal injury from car accidents like any other jurisdiction. Smart lawyers inflated claims to breaking point; insurance companies sued insurance companies, and occasionally, the odd penniless uninsured driver. One needed to have so-called third-party insurance to drive legally, but many didn't. It was an expensive upward spiral.

One day (1987, I believe? Melburnians, help me here.) almost NO insurers were willing to cover drivers in Victoria. CTP cover (compulsory third party) became so prohibitively expensive that double digits of the driving population took to the road uninsured, and so bankrupts were minted in their thousands. Surely, a social ill that only a government could cure.

They did. They created an insurance company: I guess you could call it a QANGO. When you paid your car registration (MOT) part of it was an insurance premium to the TAC.

Clever. The TAC had no-one to sue but itself. No interest in pursuing outrageous claims. They merely had to meet their obligations to the insured for medical costs, income lost, and a reasonable compensation for pain and suffering. Billions were saved.

Furthermore, if you had an accident and there was no-one to sue (e.g. if you ran into a tree) then you would still be compensated for your loss.

The TAC thinks like an insurance company. What can it do to maximise income and minimise loss? As far as maximising income, it realises that I should not rely on premiums for its payouts--the TAC invests in shares and real estate...its own building, for example. Minimising loss? How do you prevent accidents amongst your insured?

The TAC was, perhaps, the first insurance company in the world with a commercial vested interest in STOPPING claims and litigation. Thus, it studied public education campaigns for road safety and found them wanting.

They created ground-breaking advertising campaigns that really, really upset you when you watched them. Not because they necessarily showed blood and guts. Many showed the emotional consequences of an accident; the distraught mother crying over the child run over on his bike, the respirator being turned off, the agonising rehabilitation for a spinal injury.

The result? The road toll in Victoria halved. Billions of dollars saved. Thousands of court cases avoided. Thousands of lives saved.

Could any institution but government have done this?

Here's their website. Check out the 2005 annual report.

headbang8
Still mildly buzzed, but faking it. Car keys hidden.

 

[headbang8]

Headbang, I almost fell for your rhetoric until I read the "get my gun" part- I was preparing for attack. Now I feel thwarted since you were in fact agreeing, can we start an argument about something else?

Americans DO have a problem with irony, don't they?

I can't imagine that we could find grounds on which to argue, Mme. Z.

Dunno. What's your favourite colour? I hate orange. Do you like folk? I hate it. The bits of fat in Genoa salami are too big. Sony is not as reliable as it used to be. Yellowstone is better than the Grand Canyon. Sure is hot lately, ain't it? Thunderbirds suck. Big tits are more trouble than they're worth. The Giant Eagle is cheaper than the A&P. Castro was quite sexy when he was young. Oprah sucks.

Sorry, that's the best I can do.

Love, and sleep tight.

HB8
Still Buzzed

 

[B_LadyCleopatra]

ANARCHIST...Suck it! Haha.