Liberal vs. Conservative

[Brino]

Glad to see everyone likes the test. I just stumbled upon it on one of the regular newsites I frequent. God I can't believe I'm the liberalist person here I figured there would be at least one person more liberal than me.

foxfilm, I'm not sure if I have just one really radical belief. I think I scored so radical just because most if not all my beliefs are far left like pro legalizing marijuana, pro gay marriage, pro abortion, etc.

BTW Eat the rich children. Treat them like Veal!

 

[parker]

Though I was a bit critical of the test in general it's pretty good. I looked at the suggested reading list for my "score" and I've read some of those books and there others I've wanted to read for some time. Well done, Brino!
:hatsoff:

 

[foxfilm]

Georges: More power to you, brother, when it comes to your vision vs Chirac or Schroeder. But what's your opinion about Saddam? You're in the same quandrant with him... And I don't think that makes you a bad guy! (US didn't think he was so bad for about 20 years). Just makes for intersting conversation.

Ranger: Is being close to a decorated war hero (Kerry) who see's the dark side of war a bad thing? I'm not a big supporter of his simply because he's a rich boy, but I'd buy him a beer in a second for his service to our country. You too, since you've shown yourself to be the "mainstream", potential arbitrator of the group!

Parker: Genuine thanks for the link to Hannity and Combs. I'll check it out...

Re: Michael Savage... In my mind, he's tied for second on the "right wing hate thug" scale with Hannity, after Rush the drug addict douchebag.

Granted, he's awfully good at stirring people's emotions -- kind of like he condemns Edwards for, and I agree with, by the way -- but what exactly is great about his rants? That monied elites are faultless regardless of what they do? What part of his rants are so inspirational? The parts where he suggests those who don't agree with him should be either deported or killed? (Been a part of his show in the past, though I'm sure he would say he wasn't serious.)

I'll give Savage this one: He's evidently starting to step away from his Bush sucking approach of the past. He had either the balls or the stupidity to include this link at his site: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040724/D8415UKO0.html

If he's still a conservative hatemonger -- which I'm convinced he is until he honestly starts talking about the economic situation for the majority of US citizens, along with moving away from his Chickenhawk war campaign -- that's a foolish move.

If he's trying to connect with folks who aren't necessarily conservative ideologues, my hat's off. And there's also his condemnation of the 911 Commission that I applaud. (Of course his big ad for "Rightwingstuff.com: Get your gear for Liberals to fear" suggests he might be a bit right of center.)

And what the fuck's up with this? http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/teacherpics.html

Linked from his site. Maybe I'm niave, but I'm of the opinion that any study that says 1 out of 10 school teachers in the US are sexually abusing our children is about as sane as saying black children are often born with tails or that gay marriage is going to destroy America: Both of which have been testimony in congressional hearings.

Again, I ask, is this really news for a guy who's trying to be taken seriously? If he thinks this is a serious problem, should we trust anything he has to say?

OK, now here's the really controversial part of my post... Guy's getting their heads cut off...

There are physicians all over the web who are questioning the validity of these videos, including the famous Nicholas Berg vid.(http://aztlan.net/berg_abu_ghraib_video.htm)

There is much to be asked about these beheaddings, (grusome as they may seem to be)
1) If you've seen the videos, there is no blood spewing all over the place. Pool of blood, yes. Streams flying about, no. Cut the main artery to the brain while a person is alive, and you have uncontrollable spewing everywhere, especially given the stress related high heartrate and blood pressure of the unfortunate victim. This is not evident in any of the videos I've seen, and key in the arguments that these vids are fakes.

Also, why would you cut/edit a video like this, as they all have been? If you were a wild eyed terrorist capable of such a vile act, wouldn't you let the entire grusome, sordid mess play in a single take? More "real" and horrific if you do so. Why edit any of it?

My view: Edit it to cover the problems with it's "reality", just like hollywood, and just like I've done in the 5 movies I've made -- 2 of which are available at Best Buy. (Shameless plug).

The point being, regardless of the righteous indignation we may feel when we see them, and I likewise feel it in my bones, boys, their authenticity is still very much in question.

Is that the head of the guy in question, or just a dummy? Who can tell? Shouldn't a person who is having their head sawed off be flailing one hell of a lot more than these victims are? (I know, a gross question, but pertinent.) For those asking why I'm even asking these questions: The videos condemn our enemies. If the video isn't real, what are we to think about the source of the video?

2) Why is it that so many of the folks in these videos are in Orange Jumpsuits? Isn't that the clothing du jor (sp?) of prisoners in Iraq? And wasn't Berg a prisoner of the American forces in the weeks before he was supposedly killed by insergents? And weren't his parents demanding info from the pentagon about his whereabouts just before the video surfaced? And wouldn't it be difficult for you as an Iraqi insergent to steal one, let alone several, orange jumpsuits from high security facilities in Iraq? And even if you could, would the metaphoric impact of killing someone in an orange suit outweigh the power of hacking a guy's head off regardless of what he was wearing, to the point where you would run the risks involved in stealing them? Why the orange suits?! Why editing?!

I'm not saying that the US is behind these beheadings... (OK, maybe I fear that.) I love my country too much to go there at this point. I'm simply asking why the hell the videos aren't more forensically realistic and why would you go through the hassle of stealing orange jump suits?

Sorry if I've made anyone's head hurt with this. And thinking like this about my country literally brings me to tears. But the right answers aren't coming from the current administration, and probably won't come from the democrats, either, I fear.

Strange times...

 

[futthewuck]

Inspector xxx is wrong, the job swing was starting to build when reagan was in office, in came clinton and the extra taxesthat came with him, and the U.S. was beginning to build more jobs b4 09/11/2001, then alot of the jobs were lost, raising taxes, something kerry is going to do, will not help with the job market

 

[Starman]

My political compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.13

I'm in the lower left square together with people like Nelson Mandela and Ghandi, two of my heroes!

I'd love to meet Nelson Mandela in real life some day, and Ghandi too if he still were alive.

In the literature list of Libertarian Left authors on this site I see people like for example Al Franken (with the book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced look at the Far Right), Michael Moore (with the book Stupid White Men), George Orwell (with the book 1984), and Noam Chomsky. Now I want to run to the library and lend some more books.

 

[georges]

Georges: More power to you, brother, when it comes to your vision vs Chirac or Schroeder. But what's your opinion about Saddam?

I never liked Saddam he is like Hitler he killed lot of Innocents and he must die for this.None likes Saddam.

 

[Brino]

My political compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.13

Dammit! I was hoping I'd be the most liberal person on the board.

 

[parker]

Dammit! I was hoping I'd be the most liberal person on the board.

That's funny. I prefer to keep a low profile myself..... nevertheless, I sometimes think some of my rants (esp. the political ones) have prolly earned me some distinction as a bit of an "extremist." Thus I'm actually quite pleased to see others getting more radical "scores."

 

[bibo]

-5.38
-6.0

 

[Ranger]

Well, foxfilm, you do have that ability to show the other side. Some interesting thought regarding the beheading. I thought that I read that they found the body and head(maybe not).

The radio guys are way too conservative. Savage is way out there. But I even hate to listen to Randi Rhodes(msp?). She sounds like an agitated Hillary Clinton:eek: during her whole show.

I am in the field and car alot so I have the opportunity to listen. It is just too bad that all of the shows are one sided. I have heard a decent show out of NY on WABC. It is the morning show with guy from the Guardian Angels(conservative) and a liberal attorney. Unfortunately, can't get it out west.

Ranger

 

[Starman]

Originally posted by Brino
Dammit! I was hoping I'd be the most liberal person on the board.

Heheheh! With the risk of opening a can of worms I have to admit that I'm not Liberal, neither am I Conservative, I am a Socialist.

Of the sub-branches of Socialism, I belong to the Social Democracy branch.

Of Socialists, there are three kinds, Anarchists, Communists and Social Democrats.

Communists are authoritarian leftists (ie the state is more important than the individual) that believe in, after having removed the old government by revolution, creating a state-imposed arbitary collectivism (dictatorship) and a removal of all Capitalism, that will be imposed on the people with force, that will later be removed when everything is self-sustaining and has become their utopia, a voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no need for a state to be involved.
The problem with Communism is that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, so the removal of the state will never happen. The leader won't give up the power once they've gained it.

Anarchists want the same utopian society as the Communists want, but their belief in the fellow man is so strong that they believe that a state-imposed arbitary collectivism (dictatorship) isn't needed in the beginning, but that directly after you've made revolution and removed the old government you can skip to the voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved, right away.

Social Democrats wants voluntary collectivism at regional level, but with the state providing the services that should be available for all no matter your income, services which are hospitals, schools, care for the elderly, telecommunications, electricity, police, fire department and military. All this with reforms, instead of revolution. Everything has to be voluntarily, and should be done by democratic majority decisions. They don't want to replace Capitalism with Communism, but they want to have a mixed economy, a regulated Capitalism. A middle way between Communism and Capitalism called Planned Economizing. This means privately owned tax paying companies which the government will help when needed, for example help companies start at places where there are little jobs and support export that's good for the country. Socialdemocracy does also embrace the Liberal freedoms of free speech.

I didn't write these things to make you into Social Democrats, I just wanted to explain that everything left of Liberalism is not only just Communism.

 

[Inspector_XXX]

I have to say, I don't think I remember anyone ever trying to respond to one of my posts three months after I made it. But I welcome all comers.

Inspector xxx is wrong, the job swing was starting to build when reagan was in office, in came clinton and the extra taxesthat came with him

Sorry, would you mind explaining this again? George H.W. Bush was president for four years between Reagan and Clinton, during which time a recession occurred, so I don't see how you can say that the job growth under Clinton was just a carry-over from Reagan.

and the U.S. was beginning to build more jobs b4 09/11/2001

That's really not the case. I refer you again to the archived reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, specifically the reports from January 2001 and September 2001.

Looking at the total nonfarm employment, we can see:

January 2001: 132.1 million
July 2001: 132.5 million
August 2001: 132.4 million
September 2001: 132.2 million

It's pretty obvious that the employment numbers as a whole were stagnant from January to September 2001, and in fact were even declining slightly from July to September.

Furthermore, as I pointed out in an earlier post, population growth means that every month there are about 150,000 new workers looking for jobs. Zero job growth actually means that there are 150,000 new people every month looking for work and not finding it. So with only 100,000 jobs created between January and September 2001, the job market was actually 1.1 million jobs behind.

Undoubtedly, 9/11 wasn't good for the economy or the job market. But the fact is that the job market was doing pretty poorly even before then.

then alot of the jobs were lost, raising taxes, something kerry is going to do, will not help with the job market

Yeah, that's pretty much what everyone said back in 1993 when President Clinton and the Democrat-controlled Congress raised the top marginal income tax rate from 31% to 39%. (The top rate only affects those who make more than $100,000 per year.) There was a chorus of doomsaying from the right about how Clinton was going to destroy the economic recovery, how he'd send the economy into a recession, etc., etc.

To a man, the Republican party opposed the tax increase. Every single Republican in Congress voted against it. The bill passed the House by a single vote. The vote in the Senate was tied, with Al Gore breaking the tie in favor (in the Vice President's role as President of the Senate).

So the increase in the top income tax rate went into effect. And what happened? Economic collapse, like the Republicans predicted? Massive job losses? Nope.

After the Clinton tax bill went into effect, we had eight years of uninterrupted economic growth. 22.4 million new jobs were created during the Clinton administration (a net gain of 8 million jobs above population growth) The budget deficit narrowed and finally closed in the late 1990s, thanks to the robust economic growth during that period, and thanks to the increase in the top income tax rate. The rich got richer, the poor got richer, and the government stopped accumulating debt.

So, to sum up, you can talk all you want about how a tax increase will destroy jobs and hurt the economy. But I've heard it before, and the last time I heard it, it turned out to be completely wrong.

 

[foxfilm]

Hey Ranger:

Some clarification about the beheaddings rant... It's not whether or not the bodies and heads are being found that is being challenged. It's the circumstances surrounding the unfortunate killings.

The who/where/why/how of this story is what's most disturbing.

Frame by frame analysis of the Berg Video opens up some unsettling questions. Language experts have said that the voice of the supposed Iraqi/Muslim terrorist narrarator betrays an American accent. There are several frames where what seems to be the bill of a us military cap enters the frame. Berg was arrested by American forces for being an American ambling about Iraq without their permission. Would that explain the orange jump suit? Some have argued that the camera used to shoot the beheading video placed a digital signature onto the tape that matches the digital signature of much of the controversial prison footage, and the room where the killing takes place is being compared to the room featured in several of the prison vids.

I'm not saying that these beheadings are being done by American soldiers. But given the number of "contractors" we have on the ground in Iraq -- who are operating OUTSIDE of military jurisdiction and in another time would be called "mercenaries" -- and the fact that our government has supported groups who commonly engage in such henious acts, I think we need to know an awful lot more about the circumstances of these "insurgent" activities.

I hate thinking things like this. It makes me very angry to think that what I was taught to believe in isn't what I'm seeing.

But we absolutely have to do everything in our power to get to the TRUTH. Sometimes that means entertaining seemingly outrageous ideas, if only to effectively dispell such notions with the facts. But if any of this turns out to be true...

What would you do, as an American, if you found out that all of the supposed "insergents" in Iraq were being financed by our own government, or one of our allies, like say Israel?

 

[Brino]

Heheheh! With the risk of opening a can of worms I have to admit that I'm not Liberal, neither am I Conservative, I am a Socialist.

That's cool. I got no problem with that. Your views are still more to the left than mine and to be honest if my views were more to the left I might be a Communist or Anarchist or Social Democrat too. Not quite there yet but I'm working on it wink wink.

 

[foxfilm]

By the way, Inspector... Again, well stated, sir!

And Starman, you have distilled complex ideas into a concise yet informative overview. And thanks so much for mentioning Noam!

No insult intended to the library, but there are literally thousands of pages of his work available on the web.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=noam+chomsky&btnG=Google+Search

Any conservatives out there who would like to give us such an assessment of the conservative spectrum? Or well read liberals who just know their enemy well?

 

[punani lover]

Republicans are conservatives, georges. Since they have zero votes (as I write this), I assume that means you didn't vote for them or didn't vote at all.

Correction: Not all republicans are conservatives, and not all democrats are liberals. You can fall under the political category of Republican, but lean toward liberal ideology.

 

[Brino]

Correction: Not all republicans are conservatives, and not all democrats are liberals. You can fall under the political category of Republican, but lean toward liberal ideology.

But if you lean toward liberal ideology why would you vote republican and vice versa?

 

[acerockolla]

in the middle

 

[om3ga]

That is one helluva bump!!!!!:1orglaugh

I see myself as middle-of-the-road (albeit with some liberal tendencies).

 

[Johan]

I'm with the French Right, so I think it's closer to the Liberal.

But In France it's different 'cause the Left is very strong : Socialists + Neo-Communists + Ecologists = 50%

Also we use to thinks that the US liberals are quite cloise from the french Right and the US conservative no so far from the Extreme-Right...

To be simple :

Extrème Left (communists) = 10%
Left (socialists and ecologists) = 40%
Right (liberals) 35%
Extreme Right (conservatives and fascists) = 15%