PDA

View Full Version : Are you left or right? Why?



Golden Eel
04-29-2011, 11:53 PM
This forum needs more real discussion, in my opinion.

Are you left or right? Liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist, communist, anarchist? Why?

I have a feeling that most of you are pretty far left, but I wonder if some people in the woodworks around here might be of differing minds. This thread is for any general idea of what you think government and society should be, I suppose. Post whatever you think, but I'm kinda interested to hear if any of you have any real radical ideas.

I'd pretty much say I'm a socialist, which means I'm hoping there are some libertarians on here who will want to change my mind. I think education and health care are human rights. I think the ultra-wealthy should be ultra-taxed in comparison to the poor and I think these funds should be spent on people who have less than you. I don't think we should have government owned grocery stores instead of food stamps. I agree with conservatives that many people on welfare are lazy and entitled, but I also agree there are plenty of people who need it. The people who need it should not have to go without because there are lazy assholes who squander their necessities. I think nations and borders should be abolished, and I think allowing huge cults of people to believe in fairy-tales should be strictly frowned upon by society (yeah, just had to bring religion into it.) However, I don't believe the government should hold any unnecessary power over it's people. As long as you are not directly harming another person, what you are doing should not be controlled by the government. This is where I disagree with many liberals. I should be able to smoke wherever I want, I should be able to smoke [i]what[/]ever I want, and I should be able to marry who I want. I should be able to get an abortion, just like I should be able to walk into a hospital and have the option to be humanely euthanized. I should be able to own as many small guns as I want, but I should be restricted from owning nuclear arms or missiles. I believe an I.Q. test should be instituted to vote or have over a certain amount of children. The higher your intelligence, the more you should be allowed to procreate.

I probably missed a lot of stuff, though I'm sure I'll come up with it once I read some other replies.

Oh, forgot to mention. While I think the government should stay out of individuals' lives as much as possible, I think large corporations that hold the power to collapse the economies of entire nations should have much more strict regulations. Banks and oil companies should be scrutinized constantly and be forced to pay massive fines for not following the rules.

ThreeEyedGod
04-30-2011, 12:03 AM
uh oh

Golden Eel
04-30-2011, 12:12 AM
uh oh

Don't worry, I'm much more open minded outside of religion. I have a libertarian buddy who I disagree with on many, many social and economical issues but I have no problem having a civil conversation with him. I'm just curious to hear the views of my fellow PMer's. Also, you can't deny that even if that thread created quite a few unhappy campers it still livened up the forum a little bit.

Also, religion is welcome in this thread as well. I won't demean or anything if anyone believes, but I believe discussing some of the effects of religion on society is a perfectly reasonable subject. The last thread didn't really go so well, because I was basically arguing against the existence of gods and whatnot. Arguing about some of the effects religion has on the world is a total different discussion.

Dronepool
04-30-2011, 02:20 AM
Liberally Ambidextrous.


Fuck politics.

Emma
04-30-2011, 05:42 AM
I am a Liberal - in fact a card carrying member of the Liberal Democrats here in the UK. I am also a member of a union and supportive of union rights. However if I left it at that you would maybe assume I am a leftie - when in fact politics is not that black and White - which is a problem I find with American politics. Being interested in American politics I spend a lot of time reading and posting on news sites and come into contat with extreme elements both left and right and the one thing i see so constantly is there is one one way of seen g things, an assumption that to be left leaning you are soft on crime, soft on politics, pandering to all limp wristed ideals, or being on the right, you are anti gay, anti women rights, anti socialism. But as I have often argued, these people need to talk properly to one another because political affiliations aside if they got down to the nitty gritty of it, they would probably find their core principles are similar if not the same.

I believe in human rights, the rule of law, and the rights of women to choose. I believe in marriage equality, not gay civil unions as they are separate but not equal. But at the same time I believe in keeping my family safe, that if someone commits murder they should get life, unless there are exceptional circumstances such as a woman who fights back after years of abuse. I also believe that there should be no mercy for child abusers - and that includes people who look at child abuse images - life, end of.

My point being, I am a lefty mostly - believe in fairness and equality, that if we a truly in it together corporations should not be able to wriggle their way out of their taxes and the rich should not asking for tax breaks. I believe health care is a universal right - it should not be pandering to profits. I believe in freedom from tyranny but I also believe that the law is sometimes too inconsistent - for example too often I hear of someone getting 6-10 years for rape and yet someone who embezzles money gets 25-life - it's not right.

Politics and our affiliations are not always as black and White as me saying I am a Lib Dem or a democrat or a Republican - and I wish others could see that too, that if we changed the political dialogue people would see at our core, our principles are the same and by assuming or labelling a left leaning person as a socialist, commie loving progressive in a derogatory term is nothing short of ignorant. Politics has become too divisive - the right have become too good at changing the meaning of left, progressive and liberal into something Joe McCarthy would be proud of labelling people he didn't agree with. In fact McCartyism has reached, in my opinion, a new high amongst American politics - it is ruining civil discourse.

Shangri-LIE
04-30-2011, 05:45 AM
I am a musician, therefore I am ambidexterous. I am also an athelete, therefore I am ambidexterous. I can throw, write, play instruments and masturbate with both hands. I can also kick someone in the balls, or balls designed for sports with both feet. I am superior.

ThreeEyedGod
04-30-2011, 09:27 AM
Hate the whole 'left, right, liberal, conservative' labels, because as Emma said it is never so black and white.

If i played along I supposed I would say I tend to be more 'conservative' and often find myself agreeing with the 'right'.

Golden Eel
04-30-2011, 05:50 PM
I am a Liberal - in fact a card carrying member of the Liberal Democrats here in the UK. I am also a member of a union and supportive of union rights.

Ah, yes unions. Forgot to mention that one in OP, but I agree completely that unions should exist. As I touched on, corporations are pure evil and can't be trusted to treat their employees fairly.


However if I left it at that you would maybe assume I am a leftie - when in fact politics is not that black and White - which is a problem I find with American politics. Being interested in American politics I spend a lot of time reading and posting on news sites and come into contat with extreme elements both left and right and the one thing i see so constantly is there is one one way of seen g things, an assumption that to be left leaning you are soft on crime, soft on politics, pandering to all limp wristed ideals, or being on the right, you are anti gay, anti women rights, anti socialism. But as I have often argued, these people need to talk properly to one another because political affiliations aside if they got down to the nitty gritty of it, they would probably find their core principles are similar if not the same.

I agree with all of this. I'd say I'm socialist, but I disagree with quite a few 'fundamental liberal' ideas. It's incredibly annoying to hear someone say they're liberal and then side with liberals on every issue because of that. I agree it is a HUGE problem in American politics, people just need a team to root for. And anything else the other team says is wrong.


I believe in human rights, the rule of law, and the rights of women to choose. I believe in marriage equality, not gay civil unions as they are separate but not equal. But at the same time I believe in keeping my family safe, that if someone commits murder they should get life, unless there are exceptional circumstances such as a woman who fights back after years of abuse. I also believe that there should be no mercy for child abusers - and that includes people who look at child abuse images - life, end of.

You think you should get life for looking at child pornography? Interesting. And what if a husband murders his wife after years of abuse from her? Should he get the same leeway as a woman if the roles were switched?


My point being, I am a lefty mostly - believe in fairness and equality, that if we a truly in it together corporations should not be able to wriggle their way out of their taxes and the rich should not asking for tax breaks. I believe health care is a universal right - it should not be pandering to profits. I believe in freedom from tyranny but I also believe that the law is sometimes too inconsistent - for example too often I hear of someone getting 6-10 years for rape and yet someone who embezzles money gets 25-life - it's not right.

Politics and our affiliations are not always as black and White as me saying I am a Lib Dem or a democrat or a Republican - and I wish others could see that too, that if we changed the political dialogue people would see at our core, our principles are the same and by assuming or labelling a left leaning person as a socialist, commie loving progressive in a derogatory term is nothing short of ignorant. Politics has become too divisive - the right have become too good at changing the meaning of left, progressive and liberal into something Joe McCarthy would be proud of labelling people he didn't agree with. In fact McCartyism has reached, in my opinion, a new high amongst American politics - it is ruining civil discourse.

Well said. The fact that 'socialist' was thrown at Obama amazes me, and scares the shit out of Americans. I wish he was a socialist for Christ's sake.


Hate the whole 'left, right, liberal, conservative' labels, because as Emma said it is never so black and white.

If i played along I supposed I would say I tend to be more 'conservative' and often find myself agreeing with the 'right'.

I didn't intend this to be a left vs right thread, I wanted to hear the specific issues and which way you lean with them. It would be pretty boring if people just came in and posted "I'm a democrat." and that's it lol.

The Empirical Guy
04-30-2011, 11:36 PM
I saw the title of this tread and found it had an interesting correlation to an earlier discussion I was having about statistics on curvature of the penis, which itself stemmed from playing Wii Bowling. Figure that one out.

Anyway, I wouldn't say I'm either or, rather, a bit of both. I agree it's stupid to say you are left/ right and just follow them blindly no matter what. The impression I get it that that mentality is pronounced in the US, but it definitely still exists here, although the last state election saw major swings. Personally, I think politics is generally (not always) a crock of shit run by corrupt, self serving people, but my viewpoints are a mix of the two 'main' sides (conservative/ liberal). So, while I'm all in favour of abortions and think government funded basic healthcare should be standard, I take a hard line on other things. I'm not really in favour of the death penalty, but think there should be corporal punishment. Someone goes on a killing spree in the US, and they get a humane execution that's basically like going to sleep? No, cause them pain, fuck them up good and proper and make them understand first hand the pain that they've caused others.

Another example would be the rooftop protesters here in Australian at the moment. For those of you overseas that may not know, Australia gets a lot of illegal immigrants coming from South East Asia and the Middle East that turn up little rickety boats floating towards the coastline. The Navy and Border Patrol pick most of them up, and take them to processing camps where they are kept while they are assessed to see if they can legitimately claim refugee status or if they would otherwise be allowed in to the country through the proper channels, paperwork is processed and so on. Obviously these camps are fenced to keep them in and stop them running off and becoming illegal immigrants on the run, but they are by no means prisons. They're allowed to move freely within the camps, get shelter and a bed and food, exercise yards and sporting equipment, tvs and video games, they probably get it better than many low-income Australian families. Yet it's not good enough for some of them. They complain that they're 'prisoners' and that they're not being processed through the system fast enough. Their solution? The riot, burning down the buildings given to them for shelter and climbing on to the roofs of the remaining buildings and refusing to come down until their case is processed.

Now, the first and foremost flaw in this logic is, people who go on a violent riot when they're not given what they want is not really someone we want to consider for a visa in to the country. The Government's solution at the moment is to warn them that people who commit criminal acts under Australian law while in the detention centres could have their applications rejected and be deported. Woop-de-fucking-doo. Personally, if they want to light fires I think they should let them all burn, and if they're on the roofs then bring them down with bullets. Ingrates turn up here supposedly seeking refuge, we keep them safe while doing the necessary legal work and they act like rabid animals? Fuck them all, they're not people we want here: and by here I mean on Earth.

So, I'm a bit of a bastard, but think we should have some nice things, too ^_^

For the sake of the thread, I'm going to keep religion out of this discussion.

Ripper
05-01-2011, 01:22 AM
From my late teens I was always more left. Pity I hate leftists as much as I hate the right sometimes. I'd say these days I'm a nihilist when it comes to most things but especially so with politics.

Emma
05-01-2011, 03:54 AM
You think you should get life for looking at child pornography? Interesting. And what if a husband murders his wife after years of abuse from her? Should he get the same leeway as a woman if the roles were switched?



You'll have to excuse me but it's not pornography, it is images of children being abused and distributed for the sick gratification of others. As long as,people are downloading these images and not telling the authorities, the "industry" continues. These images show children being abused - children are suffering in those images. Some people think they are doing no harm because they are just looking at photos but they are doing harm because it creates a demand - the more that view them the more demand for new images. And lets not forget the pictures show children being abused. So somewhere a childs life is being ruined because someone is abusing them and these images are being distributed so others can get offmon that abuse. By downloading and getting off on the abuse of children, these people are just as bad IMO.

And yes if a man who has suffered abuse for years fights back and kills his spouse I also believe leniency should be given - sorry I led you to believe otherwise.

Basically when it comes to crime I believe cruel behaviour, whether it be besting, rape etc should carry much heavier sentences - sadly it often seems that corporate crimes, or crimes avaunt property garner harsher sentences.

The Empirical Guy
05-01-2011, 05:53 AM
And yes if a man who has suffered abuse for years fights back and kills his spouse I also believe leniency should be given - sorry I led you to believe otherwise.


This was something I forgot to touch on in my other post. I believe in equal rights: not better rights. It seems this has gotten a bit mixed up. I have encountered people who say they support 'equal' rights for women/ racial minorities/ homosexuals/ whatever group, but what they really mean is 'better' rights. Case in point, an alarming amount of people still seem to think it is totally forbidden to hit a woman: EVER. Even if this woman is pointing a gun at them or attempting to stab them with a knife, I know people who seriously think it's not ok to hit a woman in this type of self-defence situation, like you're just meant to sit there and get killed. Fuck that, I'd smack a bitch down.

Same goes for things such as racial political correctness too, these days people are so afraid of offending someone that they tiptoe around things and the minority groups end up getting better treatment. Not from me, I discriminate against everyone equally.

Christina
05-01-2011, 08:39 PM
You'll have to excuse me but it's not pornography, it is images of children being abused and distributed for the sick gratification of others. As long as,people are downloading these images and not telling the authorities, the "industry" continues. These images show children being abused - children are suffering in those images. Some people think they are doing no harm because they are just looking at photos but they are doing harm because it creates a demand - the more that view them the more demand for new images. And lets not forget the pictures show children being abused. So somewhere a childs life is being ruined because someone is abusing them and these images are being distributed so others can get offmon that abuse. By downloading and getting off on the abuse of children, these people are just as bad IMO.

I agree with you Emma. And THAT'S coming from the child of a child molester! My father went to prison 3 years ago for molesting his boss' grandchildren and I believe it started from him looking at photos of children on the Internet. He molested a 2 year old on up until she was 4 AND was showing her 9 year old sister images of "child pornography". The person I knew, before he discovered Internet... those images and whatnot, would have never done this! He never molested my brother or I, but as soon as he come across the Internet, it was downhill from there! The images lead to ideas, in my opinion. And not in that "rock'n'roll/video games/television/ = suicide and murder" bullshit way!
I've actually had a person argue with me that if I could blame child abuse images on leading up to child molestation, then that it could be possible that entertainment could be blamed for ideas of murder and suicide. How sick is that??

As horrible as you may think I am for it but I still do talk to my father when all possible, but I don't pity him. As a matter of fact I believe he deserves a worse punishment then what he got (a bargained confession for only 5 years in state), because if that was MY little baby girl he did that to and found out he only got 5 YEARS (or just molested her IN GENERAL)?? I would be the one going to prison after he got out of his pathetic 5 years served! And THAT is coming from a mother of a 1 year old! I can't imagine how devastated the parents were when they heard the slap on the wrist that he got!

cyborg assassin
05-04-2011, 10:17 AM
Right-wing, but not particularly conventional, and I've given up caring about total ideological consistency. I saw myself as a libertarian for several years but came to view the ideology as limited (like liberalism, neoconservatism, and Marxism, it's a secular religion) in many ways so appropriated what was worthwhile from it while discarding the rest. Right now, I will admit I still need to do a lot more reading of history, philosophy, and especially sociobiology.

Although I read about it everyday, I've no enthusiasm for day-to-day party politics, and since I moved abroad I'm no longer bothered about voting.

Cringeon
05-04-2011, 10:53 AM
I'm a democrat. Raised in family that way, so its always been most in line with the positions of government I believe in.

Posted from my BlackBerry

Christina
05-04-2011, 02:10 PM
^ Ah thank god. I thought I killed this thread with talk of my perverted daddy!

Ulysses Black
05-04-2011, 02:35 PM
Conservative with libertarian leanings.

Golden Eel
05-04-2011, 10:27 PM
You'll have to excuse me but it's not pornography, it is images of children being abused and distributed for the sick gratification of others. As long as,people are downloading these images and not telling the authorities, the "industry" continues. These images show children being abused - children are suffering in those images. Some people think they are doing no harm because they are just looking at photos but they are doing harm because it creates a demand - the more that view them the more demand for new images. And lets not forget the pictures show children being abused. So somewhere a childs life is being ruined because someone is abusing them and these images are being distributed so others can get offmon that abuse. By downloading and getting off on the abuse of children, these people are just as bad IMO.

This is a subject I struggle with. On one hand, these people have no choice in their sexual desires. By viewing those images, they're far less likely to go out and commit abuse. On the other hand, there are children getting hurt in the production of the images. I suppose you're right though, punishment for viewing the images seems fit. However, the fact that having cartoon or Photoshop depictions of child porn in your possession can put you in jail is absolutely retarded.


And yes if a man who has suffered abuse for years fights back and kills his spouse I also believe leniency should be given - sorry I led you to believe otherwise.

I was just confused and clarifying.


This was something I forgot to touch on in my other post. I believe in equal rights: not better rights. It seems this has gotten a bit mixed up. I have encountered people who say they support 'equal' rights for women/ racial minorities/ homosexuals/ whatever group, but what they really mean is 'better' rights. Case in point, an alarming amount of people still seem to think it is totally forbidden to hit a woman: EVER. Even if this woman is pointing a gun at them or attempting to stab them with a knife, I know people who seriously think it's not ok to hit a woman in this type of self-defence situation, like you're just meant to sit there and get killed. Fuck that, I'd smack a bitch down.

Same goes for things such as racial political correctness too, these days people are so afraid of offending someone that they tiptoe around things and the minority groups end up getting better treatment. Not from me, I discriminate against everyone equally.

I'm with you 100%. If a woman hits a man, she has every reason to be hit in the face. I also dislike people who identify as a certain race or culture. "I'm a proud black woman." Why? Why are you proud of things you had no control over? You shouldn't be proud to be anything but a human, pride implies being a black woman is better than being another race or gender. And it's not.


I agree with you Emma. And THAT'S coming from the child of a child molester! My father went to prison 3 years ago for molesting his boss' grandchildren and I believe it started from him looking at photos of children on the Internet. He molested a 2 year old on up until she was 4 AND was showing her 9 year old sister images of "child pornography". The person I knew, before he discovered Internet... those images and whatnot, would have never done this! He never molested my brother or I, but as soon as he come across the Internet, it was downhill from there! The images lead to ideas, in my opinion. And not in that "rock'n'roll/video games/television/ = suicide and murder" bullshit way!
I've actually had a person argue with me that if I could blame child abuse images on leading up to child molestation, then that it could be possible that entertainment could be blamed for ideas of murder and suicide. How sick is that??

I think that person is correct. Viewing child porn doesn't make someone suddenly become attracted to children. If he was attracted to children, he has been attracted to children for quite some time. Implying the internet and access to the images created the desire in him seems quite foolish. Just because you were quite close to him doesn't mean you have any grounds for making unbacked psychological claims.


Right-wing, but not particularly conventional, and I've given up caring about total ideological consistency. I saw myself as a libertarian for several years but came to view the ideology as limited (like liberalism, neoconservatism, and Marxism, it's a secular religion) in many ways so appropriated what was worthwhile from it while discarding the rest. Right now, I will admit I still need to do a lot more reading of history, philosophy, and especially sociobiology.

Although I read about it everyday, I've no enthusiasm for day-to-day party politics, and since I moved abroad I'm no longer bothered about voting.


I'm a democrat. Raised in family that way, so its always been most in line with the positions of government I believe in.

Posted from my BlackBerry


Conservative with libertarian leanings.

Okay guys... I clarified a few times that this thread wasn't for people to just come in and say "I'm democrat." or "I'm libertarian."

Expand on the specific issues you think are governments' responsibilities, etc.

The Empirical Guy
05-05-2011, 03:38 AM
I also dislike people who identify as a certain race or culture. "I'm a proud black woman." Why? Why are you proud of things you had no control over? You shouldn't be proud to be anything but a human, pride implies being a black woman is better than being another race or gender. And it's not.


Haha. That's something I'd never picked up on before but yes, totally correct.

Christina
05-05-2011, 02:24 PM
I think that person is correct. Viewing child porn doesn't make someone suddenly become attracted to children. If he was attracted to children, he has been attracted to children for quite some time. Implying the Internet and access to the images created the desire in him seems quite foolish. Just because you were quite close to him doesn't mean you have any grounds for making unbacked psychological claims.


I disagree.

As soon as he discovered this "fetish" it changed his whole personality. He stopped going to work as much, he never left this house (unless he actually WAS going to work 3 days out of the 6 he was supposed to be there) and he lost interest in all of his hobbies. He had a race car he was building from scratch that he was passionate about so much so that he put himself in debt 20,000 just to build it! But as soon as he got his computers he just let the car go. He stopped going to his shop he had out back that he used to build furniture in, things he could have gone on to be a carpenter professionally. Instead, he would just lock himself in his room for hours on the Internet. Come out long enough to go to the bathroom and eat, then right back he went.
The FBI said the forensic expert found over 1000 images and videos of teenagers and children that he had downloaded, around the same time he had molested the child in question, on his computers and that he would be charged with each and every one later on after his time was served.
His history with children was not of being a molester. As a matter of fact, he never even really cared or paid any attention to children, unless it was my brother or I and that was few and far in between. Now I'm not saying the possibility of attraction wasn't there, but the action was NOT until he started acting "different" which was around the same time he was downloading the videos and images. I CAN assure you of that! It seems as though it sparked up a fantasy and he turned it into a reality.
He was starting to get interested in shows like Hannah Montana, Full House and usually enjoyed watching the Disney channel often. He became obsessed with School Of Rock and Avril Lavigne. It was, at the time, a concern for me and I questioned it to the point where I had to ask my brother what he thought of our father and the way he was acting. He shrugged it off as though he knew something but didn't want to talk about it.

I may not have a degree in psychology, but I don't need one to tell you that my father was not like "that" until he got a computer!

http://www.wbko.com/home/headlines/40741882.html

http://glasgowdailytimes.com/local/x20302464/Pacheco-sentenced/print

Now the comparison between rock=suicide and child "porn"=child molestation is ridiculous because A. One is entertainment and the other, as Emma said, is abuse. Now though molestation and suicide both stem from mental disorder BECAUSE they both cause harm to an individual, entertainment and death are completely irrelevant to one another, whereas child "porn" and child molestation go hand in hand because the actions are one in the other... they both equal abuse!

Shangri-LIE
05-05-2011, 03:10 PM
The only thing I can come close to categorizing myself as is a "Centerist". I like to look at facts, and without a bias. Even though my alter ego on here points in another direction. I am a realist. I listen to both sides. I watch all networks, and all pundits. I did register as a democrat at 18, but I've grown into being a-political. If you classify yourself as anything you are an idiot. Politics is all rhetoric. I prefer the humanitarian approach.

Golden Eel
05-05-2011, 08:30 PM
I disagree.

I read your post, and while I still disagree I won't argue any further because that's what destroyed my last thread and got everyone to get angry with me lol.

Plus I just want people to post what they feel without the fear of me coming in and ranting against them.

Christina
05-05-2011, 08:35 PM
I read your post, and while I still disagree I won't argue any further because that's what destroyed my last thread and got everyone to get angry with me lol.

Plus I just want people to post what they feel without the fear of me coming in and ranting against them.

It's cool. I didn't feel aggressive at all while posting or while reading yours. I like being able to discuss disagreements without it becoming an argument. I think it would make the world a better place if everyone felt like that.

Carry on.

Golden Eel
05-05-2011, 09:05 PM
I'm just saying I'm pretty sure sexual preferences are defined in the womb, and at a young age. There are plenty of gay people who didn't know they were gay until many years into their life, but doesn't mean they weren't gay the whole time. I'm not saying you're wrong in seeing huge changes in him, I'm just arguing from the scientific consensus that sexual preferences don't just appear late in life. If it was subconsciously repressed, then it probably was triggered by something other than straight up child porn. It would be my guess that something triggered the idea to come out, which triggered him to use the internet. But I don't know him, and I'm not a psychologist. And for the record, I'm more talking about the issue in general than I'm talking about your dad specifically.

Christina
05-05-2011, 09:56 PM
I'm just saying I'm pretty sure sexual preferences are defined in the womb, and at a young age. There are plenty of gay people who didn't know they were gay until many years into their life, but doesn't mean they weren't gay the whole time. I'm not saying you're wrong in seeing huge changes in him, I'm just arguing from the scientific consensus that sexual preferences don't just appear late in life. If it was subconsciously repressed, then it probably was triggered by something other than straight up child porn. It would be my guess that something triggered the idea to come out, which triggered him to use the internet. But I don't know him, and I'm not a psychologist. And for the record, I'm more talking about the issue in general than I'm talking about your dad specifically.
Well I think that's where the subject gets dangerous because of lack of knowledge of pedophilia from the general public with it being so touchy. Sexual appeal to children is a controversial subject for the fact that there have actually been groups of pedophiles that argue pedophilia is a sexual preference and not a psychiatric disorder which I myself agree it is a disorder rather then a preference. I believe it is considered a psychiatric disorder because it causes harm to an individual AND it also causes addictive behavior. The reason I agree that it is addictive is because the person committing the crime doesn't just stop at one or two victims or videos/images. Just like drug addiction, it goes on until help is received or realization occurs (which rarely happens). It cannot be cured but the urges can be helped whereas preference does not harm consensual partners.
Now generally, pedophiles are usually considered to have had this disorder from a young age, and he may have, but the action is really what I believe was triggered off by the images of pedophilia and nude images of children.

Like I said, no aggression. :)

Golden Eel
05-05-2011, 10:42 PM
Well I think that's where the subject gets dangerous because of lack of knowledge of pedophilia from the general public with it being so touchy. Sexual appeal to children is a controversial subject for the fact that there have actually been groups of pedophiles that argue pedophilia is a sexual preference and not a psychiatric disorder which I myself agree it is a disorder rather then a preference. I believe it is considered a psychiatric disorder because it causes harm to an individual AND it also causes addictive behavior. The reason I agree that it is addictive is because the person committing the crime doesn't just stop at one or two victims or videos/images. Just like drug addiction, it goes on until help is received or realization occurs (which rarely happens). It cannot be cured but the urges can be helped whereas preference does not harm consensual partners.
Now generally, pedophiles are usually considered to have had this disorder from a young age, and he may have, but the action is really what I believe was triggered off by the images of pedophilia and nude images of children.

Like I said, no aggression. :)

Pedophilia isn't the cause of any of those problems, poor self-control is. I can't understand how being attracted to children is any different than being attracted to the same gender. If you choose not to act on any of those urges, no one will be hurt. There are people attracted to animals and people attracted to inanimate objects. It's when you consciously choose to fuck a dog or a picnic table that it becomes a problem.

What if your sexual preference is to rape someone? When does a fetish turn into a disorder?

Sex can also be highly addictive among straight, average people. The reason pedophiles get such a bad wrap imo, is that only the ones with poor self-control make themselves known. I have no doubt that there are plenty of people who go through life attracted to children (or animals, etc.) who never act on their urges, so no one would ever even know.

Either way, I think we both agree on the fundamental issue here: if you act on these urges, you deserve the penalty for your actions. Don't want to make it seem like I'm some pederast sympathizer. I just like looking at social norms under a different light, and sometimes it gets me some weird looks lol.

Christina
06-14-2011, 12:00 AM
I can masturbate with both hands.

I don't like you already!

Bragger!!

ThreeEyedGod
06-14-2011, 12:22 AM
There have been scientific studies where average, straight people where shown child porn videos and they were very sexually stimulated. They had devices hooked up to them that were supposed to measure how sexually stimulated you were and they all showed undeniable, physiological signs.

Terrapin
09-05-2012, 10:19 AM
Independent of the whole shebang. See no point in leaning one way or the other. Simply make decisions based on fiscal opportunities and in support of individual rights for people to live however they see fit that doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Essentially, fuck the political two-party system we were born to live within. It does nothing but harm progress.

MaryYana
09-05-2012, 10:35 AM
I'm a socialist. I believe 100-1000 wishes for good lives go above the 1 wish for a life in luxury. You being born in a rich or poor family does not make you deserve more or less as a human being and education and job chances are for all.

If you have extreme difficulties keeping you away from being able to study yourself to, or keep, a job, then you should be given support because there's nothing you can do about it. If shit fucks up for you in life, you should be given economical support and keep being offered a chance to go back to studying for a job or getting a job whenever there is a better time to do so.

Being the latter, though, you shouldn't have quite as good of an economy as a person with a job does. Some professions should also give you better wages than others. This is to keep some people motivated to contribute to society or/and go for the professions that are more difficult to reach, but are needed, because without anyone contributing to society there is no way it could be properly run for everyone and there is also no way that the people who need support can get it, since you can't grab the things needed for support out of nothing. Some people will work out of passion for the profession itself, but a lot of people go more by instincts and human is, at the core, as lazy as it can be without getting into trouble or being too uncomfortable with its situation.

Terrapin
09-05-2012, 10:56 AM
I am of the mindset that what I make should not be taken away by government regulations to be given to people that didn't earn it themselves. I'm not going to pay for your shithead family with all its shithead kids for no reason beyond the fact that they are people too. That's absurd. If I'm working hard to make a living, others should work just as hard to get there. That's as much a life lesson as it is anything else. You shouldn't receive what you didn't earn.

If there's a trend that goes on with my political viewpoints, it's that I feel we need less government regulation in essentially all areas of life. Not more.

MaryYana
09-05-2012, 10:59 AM
I am of the mindset that what I make should not be taken away by government regulations to be given to people that didn't earn it themselves. I'm not going to pay for your shithead family with all its shithead kids for no reason beyond the fact that they are people too. That's absurd. If I'm working hard to make a living, others should work just as hard to get there. That's as much a life lesson as it is anything else. You shouldn't receive what you didn't earn.

If there's a trend that goes on with my political viewpoints, it's that I feel we need less government regulation in essentially all areas of life. Not more.

And how are they supposed to be able to work for their money if they can't afford the education required for work?

Terrapin
09-05-2012, 11:08 AM
There's plenty of jobs out there that don't require a whole lot of education to perform. They can move up from there however they see fit. I can't afford the education necessary to get the job I'd like right now as well, so I'm going to be working to earn some money in order to achieve my goals. It's a pretty simple concept.

MaryYana
09-05-2012, 11:26 AM
There's plenty of jobs out there that don't require a whole lot of education to perform. They can move up from there however they see fit. I can't afford the education necessary to get the job I'd like right now as well, so I'm going to be working to earn some money in order to achieve my goals. It's a pretty simple concept.

I don't want to bring you down or kill your hopes, so I will no longer argue this :/

Celebrity Killing Spree
09-05-2012, 12:20 PM
Art is my politics. I consider myself poetically active. Which is to say, I don't really have anything to prove politically and find it sad that so many of my fellow artists are squandering their talents by attempting to do so.

That being said. I've been censored, brow beaten and slandered by more so called activist artists than I ever have any government or institution.

sayyosin
09-05-2012, 12:52 PM
I've become pretty apolitical because I think the two-party system in America is an illusion of choice. I think everyone, as in every social class, is going to have to sacrifice something in order to fix the huge problems that we have. I generally think less government intervention in an individual's life is a good thing. Health care and education should be human rights. Corporations are NOT people and they should be more strictly regulated. I believe in unions and I think CEOs make too much money and don't give enough to employees. Teachers should be paid more than they are today. I think taxes for the rich should be much higher than they are, and it should go towards education, health care, architecture, welfare (for the poor who actually want to contribute to society but are being held back by legitimate reasons), and repaying our debt to the world. We need to get rid of privatized prisons and stop incarcerating people for profit. Stop government collision with big business, take on the military industrial complex, cut military budgets, end the war on drugs, and radically change our foreign policy. When it comes to everyone's favorite part of politics (social issues), I say yes to gay marriage, yes to the choice of abortion, yes to more strict gun regulation (I'll admit I'm on the fence with this because of our country's boner for violence), and no to the death penalty.

In my opinion the social hierarchy, while completely necessary in a capitalistic society, perpetuates greed and exploitation as ways of climbing the social ladder. For capitalism to work, there always must be people below the poverty line. With our world soon to be even more over-populated with even less natural resources to support everyone, it seems capitalism is bound to eventually fail. Our priorities as a country are fucked up and our citizens are too distracted to care enough to know what to do about it. Most people just pick their teams and argue about the same social issues over and over again while ignoring the real ones that no Democrat or Republican would ever talk about. To quote the video below, Americans used to say "give me Liberty or give me death." It seems "fuck Liberty, give me an iPhone" is much more aligned with Americans' priorities now. Consumerism has become the biggest addiction in the modern world and nothing Americans place value on can be thought of out of the context of what can be bought and sold. Maybe it's just me, but I find that most people my age are extremely ignorant about world issues and too deluded in their own comforts to care. Convenience is more valued than virtue.

We should get rid of borders and nationalism in general because I think it just creates more division between different cultures instead of uniting us as a society. Multiculturalism could work if people weren't brought up to be so ethnocentric. I think industrialization has accomplished a lot but it's also destroying many old ways of life, animals, and their environment. It's a non-sustainable way of producing goods that will not work forever. I know extinction of species is inevitable in the history of the natural world, but it sucks when humans are responsible for so much death and loss in the name of capitalism. I'm not a huge environmentalist but I think we should use our resources more wisely instead of being so excessive in every aspect of our culture. Like I said in the beginning, we all need to make sacrifices if we want this to work in the long-run.

I don't like to call myself "socialist," "leftist," or especially "anarchist," but those words are probably what other people would call me.

This video by Terroja perfectly sums up my thoughts on politics right now.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QR2NGaQW24

Terrapin
09-05-2012, 01:19 PM
^I may disagree with some of your points, but very much agree on everything else. I see the need for people to start becoming more apolitical, and focusing in on the real issues facing our country, as a must these days. Nothing is going to get solved, and we are going to forever be digging this deeper hole for ourselves, if we don't grow a pair and start tackling the important issues head on. Instead, we continue perpetuating this bullshit "us against them" mentality. Unfortunately for us, much of the youth are either set in the ways their parents built for them or just don't care about these issues facing us as a nation.

Terroja made some great points in his vid. Either way you look at it with these two candidates, it's going to be another 4 years of getting nothing tangible solved and we will be right back to where we started around the next election cycle. They are far too similar on just about everything that you really are only voting for the party, not the policies. We don't stand a chance against this machine the way the country stands currently.

Seriously, fuck our political system.

filthytothecore
09-05-2012, 09:20 PM
I think some form of Fascism maybe in a Socialist manner would describe me although I hate most of the fanboys and the politicians themselves that are liberal and conservative, To me it Really looks to be two sides of the same coin so to speak, Both have no clue WTF they are doing, We should seal the borders until we can get our own shit under control instead of worrying about countries that couldn't give a fuck about ours. We need to rebuild our economy and the way I see it we need to somewhat undersell other markets but not as in a sweatshop manner.

We as Americans need to help rebuild our economy and go in isolation for a while until we can further understand why we messed up in the first place, The two party system has to go, WE need more than just the two party BS and laws should be made to ensure that no radio station or TV station has any bias and instead, Politicians actually have to do speeches, Be one with the people, Not an outsider that act's above the common person but uplift them in comradeship.
-Filthy

21Faces
09-06-2012, 01:07 AM
I am a leftist and a partisan. And I am a Democrat, because I am a realist and pragmatist. If there's one thing that pissess me off it's apathetics (particularly on my side of the aisle) who throw their hands up and say "It's ALL bullshit maaaaaaan! The parties are all the same so why bother!?"

Well there's a party on the right side of gay rights, of reproductive rights, of labor standards, and of immigrants- just to name a few issues. These "social issues" are easily written off by people blind to their own privileges as "distractions," but ask a pregnant woman or a gay couple or a 17 year old kid about to get deported from the country he's been raised in since he was five if these issues are distractions. We have a supreme court that ruled money is free speech and that it should be spent without limits and with total anonymity in our elections by any and all who can pay to play the system in their favor. The majority on that decision was determined by judges appointed by ONE party.

Looking for a party that espouses ALL your political views is unrealistic. And if a party doesn't fight hard enough for the values you feel are most important, then what the fuck are you doing about it other than whining? Find other like-minded people within any party that is actually organized and has a real platform, and work to make your values heard from within. Democracy requires participation for it to actually WORK, and it works from the ground UP.

That goes for third party enthusiasts as well. Ground up and something that will likely take a generation to develop as a real influence beyond being merely a spoiler in a two party system. There are many, many smaller state-level positions that would need to be amassed: city councilors, local senators, house members, city mayors, and state governors to develop into a credible third (or fourth, or whatever party). But until then, the absence of a nonexistent mythical dream "third party" is not a valid excuse to abdicate our responsibility and PRIVILEGE to make real choices between the politicians fighting to lead us right now at the highest levels of government.

Terrapin
09-06-2012, 07:10 AM
Yes, it is important to make real choices if you want anything of use to come out of the system. That's not the problem here. Why should anyone feel forced to vote for someone who doesn't match their views in the real issues? If someone swings one way economically and the other socially, where does your vote go? It's not all about perceived importance on whatever the issue up for debate is, plenty of damage has already been dealt.

What we face here is essentially the same candidate under different colors. Their differences only lie in the typical liberal/conservative fashion. We then find issues which aren't even being addressed by either candidate, where do these go? What impact are we making on the world? Perhaps a stance that may seem important to you won't seem important to the rest of us since we aren't looking at them through partisan eyes. It's the rest of us, the ones who either swing elections or are at their wit's end with the whole process, who have to continue struggling with this nonsense constantly.

The reason for the "whining" (I'd call it active commentary) is due to such unnecessary, strict, partisanship causing incredible damage with hardly anyone batting an eye. Good policies are ignored in favor of whatever that party platform has voted on traditionally. There is no feeling of cooperation at this point. It's always "us against them" no matter what they say otherwise. Individuals with any common sense are having to endure seeing the country fall to the ground because of blind partisanship politics. How anyone could align themselves with the hypocritical nature of either side is beyond me.

I'm all for being active. Such activity can be promoting others out there, beyond the two parties, who are providing real choices to the people. Will these people get elected? No, but it gives you peace of mind that you acted in accordance to your values. If you already understand it's a lose-lose situation with either candidates running for a spot in any election, why settle for less? Hell, it even provides 100% certainty that you can say, "Shoot, I didn't vote for 'em," when the inevitable happens.

MaryYana
09-06-2012, 12:36 PM
In sweden, we have parties that are in the middle. There are two larger alliances of parties though, I think, so all the parties of the winning alliance get a certain amount of power too depending on the votes. The only one that can't get into an alliance is Sverigedemokraterna because well... nobody likes Sverigedemokraterna. It's a miracle they even got a chance to be a small part of the power.
"This country is for swedes, not all dem colored people coming here living on our social security system! GET OUT! ...OMG Y NOONE WANT US IN ALLIANCE??!??"

Swedish politics are boring though because we don't have people saying funny things like "women who get raped for real never get pregnant".

filthytothecore
09-06-2012, 05:15 PM
In sweden, we have parties that are in the middle. There are two larger alliances of parties though, I think, so all the parties of the winning alliance get a certain amount of power too depending on the votes. The only one that can't get into an alliance is Sverigedemokraterna because well... nobody likes Sverigedemokraterna. It's a miracle they even got a chance to be a small part of the power.
"This country is for swedes, not all dem colored people coming here living on our social security system! GET OUT! ...OMG Y NOONE WANT US IN ALLIANCE??!??"

Swedish politics are boring though because we don't have people saying funny things like "women who get raped for real never get pregnant".

I can agree with THe right wing view of Sweden bvecause I know where they are coming from in terms of Sweden only for ethnic Swedes.

MaryYana
09-07-2012, 12:11 AM
I can agree with THe right wing view of Sweden bvecause I know where they are coming from in terms of Sweden only for ethnic Swedes.

I don't. But they are better than the right wing of america.

ThreeEyedGod
09-07-2012, 08:41 AM
my country is better than your country! na na na boo boo!

Shangri-LIE
09-07-2012, 09:13 AM
I am an iDon'tcarist anymore. I've grown apathetic to the charades and manipulative semantics of any political candidate. "I am rich. I have a lovely family. I have superior values. Look at my handsome children and purebred pets. Listen to my slogans, they're vague and mean nothing but to rile up venues full of uneducated pissants. I go to church. Vote for me."

I invest no interest in politics anymore and will continue to do what I want, say what I want, work where I want and live how I want whether it is against the law or not. YOLO *chuckle

Mugwump
09-07-2012, 10:29 AM
I suppose a lot of my views would be considered liberal. I think we should focus our attention inward and take care of ourselves better, individually and as a whole. Take care of any debts, learn to live within our means, be more financially responsible. Americans for the most part seem bratty, irresponsible, and unhealthy and their culture seems really unsustainable and I find it morally sickening.

Things like marijuana should just be decriminalized, and gay marriage is okay too. I think tribes should be given more power over their lands and be given restitution already - or at least have the US gov't finally at least admit to or apologize for the misdeeds it has committed against tribal nations. It would also be nice if large corporations and the Fed stopped trying to encroach on tribal rights for profit.

Other than that I'm not too interested in politics. They're about as fascinating to me as baseball statistics.

AssetReign
09-07-2012, 10:32 AM
^President Obama signed the Native American Apology Resolution into law in December, 2009.

*I am part Cherokee.

MaryYana
09-07-2012, 10:45 AM
my country is better than your country! na na na boo boo!

Your jokes get boring after a while. Just letting you know. Constructive criticism, you know ;)

AssetReign
09-07-2012, 10:58 AM
^ Technically, that's not "constructive" criticism. Constructive would be offering an explanation and maybe an example.

ThreeEyedGod
09-07-2012, 12:42 PM
Your jokes get boring after a while.

but you were enjoying them at first?

MaryYana
09-07-2012, 12:45 PM
but you were enjoying them at first?

One or two of them. *shrugs*

Mugwump
09-07-2012, 12:59 PM
This bitch...

MaryYana
09-07-2012, 01:21 PM
I only bitch at dickheads C:

Shit has gone off topic.

petticoat
09-07-2012, 10:24 PM
I'm liberal and was agreeing with the OP up until s/he mentioned guns and requiring IQ tests to procreate. Who would design the tests? Who would interpret them? Too much margin for error though I can see the appeal in attempting to at least assist in the evolution, rather than so much of the devolution we're seeing. And we're seeing so much devolution because that's what we're exposed to, exceedingly, most news stories focus on the negative; and in my experience, curling up in despair is giving over to it and is weak and stupid. A lot of beauty still exists in the world, is still being created and put out there.

iggy
09-08-2012, 09:33 AM
My political views are pretty close to MMT's apparently. Minus euthanasia, and drugs, which I feel DO directly harm others.

MaryYana
09-08-2012, 11:13 AM
My political views are pretty close to MMT's apparently. Minus euthanasia, and drugs, which I feel DO directly harm others.

Okay, so we're going to ban drugs because they can be harmful to others, rather than teach people the dangers of them and, in case they wish to do them anyway, how to best handle them?

Then we should also ban cars and other oil-driven things, getting kids (some of them grow up to be serial killers you know) and having sex at all, before or after marriage (HIV. Not all people tell their partners about such things. Stupid and assholeish, but so are the people behaving the wrong way with drugs).

Sounds insane to me. It's better to teach people how to handle certain things than to ban them for all people, including for the ones who know better :)

filthytothecore
09-08-2012, 11:56 PM
I may be close to farthest right leaning but do support Gay Marriage 100%

iggy
09-09-2012, 02:29 AM
Okay, so we're going to ban drugs because they can be harmful to others, rather than teach people the dangers of them and, in case they wish to do them anyway, how to best handle them?

Then we should also ban cars and other oil-driven things, getting kids (some of them grow up to be serial killers you know) and having sex at all, before or after marriage (HIV. Not all people tell their partners about such things. Stupid and assholeish, but so are the people behaving the wrong way with drugs).

Sounds insane to me. It's better to teach people how to handle certain things than to ban them for all people, including for the ones who know better :)

Thing is, you can't exactly die from a sudden lack of driving, or driving too much. Driving doesn't cause people to sell their babies for driving money, or let them starve to death because the driver is too strung out on driving to notice their driving habit is killing their family. And people who know better? Like, no one?

MaryYana
09-09-2012, 04:36 AM
Thing is, you can't exactly die from a sudden lack of driving, or driving too much. Driving doesn't cause people to sell their babies for driving money, or let them starve to death because the driver is too strung out on driving to notice their driving habit is killing their family. And people who know better? Like, no one?

You really apply this belief to all drugs? Your example mainly works with heroin, and viewing (and treating) heroin and marijuana the same way isn't very reasonable.

Heroin is bad as fuck, but making it illegal makes people even less likely to get out of an addiction to it. As for marijuana, yes, some people are stupid with it and others are not. Marijuana isn't any worse than alcohol. Why don't you try to get alcohol banned? Well, of course, because most people can drink more responsibly than others and some people choose their time and place better than others. Same goes for marijuana.

Divine
10-18-2012, 02:35 AM
I'm a leave me the fuck alone type of guy

So if you want to sleep with a .45 cal under your pillow so be it

I don't like guns but who am I or anyone else to say that you can't own a weapon for whatever reason?

Sixteen Saltines
10-18-2012, 08:30 AM
only liberals smoke lettuce,

so yes, liberal.

Bryson18
10-18-2012, 08:44 AM
Republican ALL THE WAY!

Hate liberals.

*Edited for inexcusably bigoted remarks* -Terrapin

Terrapin
10-18-2012, 09:47 AM
only liberals smoke lettuce,

so yes, liberal.
Now that's just not true. I know plenty from both sides of the coin who divulge in such activities. You're gonna have to come up with something better than that. 80% of Americans support safe access to medical cannabis; 74% are against the increased raids of the Obama administration. He's actually been the worst offender on marijuana dispensary raids, which comes in direct opposition to his campaign promises. Liberal AND conservative candidates support federal regulation when it comes to marijuana with no intent at all to effectively end this ridiculous War on Drugs. No reason to be stuck in the left vs. right paradigm on this issue, or any other.

OT: I have a third-party candidate to support, and if they can get 5% of the national vote will actually achieve budgeting toward a third-party having a chance to even somewhat campaign in the 2016 election. Essentially allowing my vote this year to go toward something with potential use. While this one is a loss with either candidate running, at least there's hope to get another voice and option out there in the future. It's not like either candidates are going to do anything to improve this country in the next four years anyway. Same candidate with different flavors, as usual.


http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/150527_446346702067869_2110763393_n.jpg
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/63821_151792774856598_1273893_n.jpg

petticoat
10-18-2012, 12:39 PM
<---- extremely liberal

Per Terrapin, I don't really get how people can say the two candidates are the same. They are radically different. Jesus H Christ on a pony :D

And I"m sensitive to comments like that because I voted for Nader and helped Bush win over Gore a few years back. I totally agree we need more than 2 parties, I just don't think it's hugely viable and it certainly won't happen soon. Much luck to the young idealists still in the world. xoxoxox <3

Terrapin
10-18-2012, 12:52 PM
Where it matters, how are they different? Both sides want extended government regulation on whatever supports their party ideal. Whether it be socially or fiscally. According to either party, you can't have the best of both worlds, when in fact you can. Neither have remotely decent plans for the IRS, the banks, the Fed, foreign wars, NDAA provisions, energy, etc. They are nothing more than puppets strung up by their corporate backers. It's insane to watch. Both sides are running this country into the ground and neither side have established an effective means for upheaval of anything beyond putting out small fires as they occur. In the meantime, they negate each other in Congress to stop anything from ever getting passed.

Both sides are saying that voting for a third party will hurt their candidate. Well neither candidates or parties deserve support, and it doesn't matter who wins since this is equally a lose-lose fiasco every four years. I'm tired of them monopolizing this system and will do what I can to know I fought for changing this rigged system in the future. I refuse to support what has become a warring of two gangs which continues bullying the people into submission, and watching the people lay back and take it. It's indifference/acceptance of the two party effect, along with the overwhelming majority of uneducated citizens, which allows their clutch on society to continue.

petticoat
10-18-2012, 01:31 PM
It's fairly common knowledge that if just half of the people that voted for Nader in NH would've voted for Gore, Bush would've lost. If Bush would've lost, we would've had no war in Iraq, no 'war on terror' that lead to the erroneously named 'Patriot Act', no Gitmo, no trashing of the Clean Air & Water Act, and on and on. I don't wish to list all the travesties of the Dubya presidency, as I've just had lunch, but there is a gigantic difference.

When it comes to Romney vs Obama, again, huge difference, especially socially. Obama stands for a woman's right to choose, not allowing insurance companies to fuck you as badly as before, and allowing LGBT people the right to marry, with all the legal benefits that includes. Sure, they both have their problems, and yes we need a third party to win, but it's not going to happen this time or the next or the next, but maybe the next one after that. The whole reason I voted for Nader was because I liked what the Green Party stood for and in my naivete, thought he stood a chance, perhaps not with getting actually elected, but at least paving the way to having more than a 2-party system.

Terrapin
10-18-2012, 01:43 PM
Exactly, you're perpetuating the social benefits of the liberal idea. I agree with a more liberal leaning on social issues but will be damned to support their fiscal take. Flip that for the conservative side.

There's a lot of huge issues facing this country, I wouldn't expect anyone to vote for a candidate based purely on two issues when there are so many damning qualities to go with that support. Neither candidate have any idea how to improve the nation, they are merely pandering to their voting base. Something they have always done since they don't have the guts to think any differently. Btw, we've had a liberal president for four years and are still doing war strikes, increased TSA, the NDAA provisions threaten us, and the Patriot Act remains. You can't assume anything would have been different.

Instead of supporting their control, I'm taking the high road. I know it's an idealistic view, but this country was built on them and I couldn't go any other way.

petticoat
10-18-2012, 01:54 PM
Please don't put me in the camp that decides on a candidate based on two issues. I'm not that. Many reasons Obama has been ineffective is because the Republicans have blocked him on most everything he has tried to do, which they then turn around and blame him for not doing anything. Maybe it's because I'm female that Mitt Romney is so disgusting to me. He and his friends that think a woman can "will herself" not to get pregnant if she's been raped. Really? How fucking ludicrous does it have to get before people stop saying there's no difference in the candidates. Anyhow, enjoy the high road, I travel there from time to time myself even as the path narrows.

Sixteen Saltines
10-18-2012, 02:09 PM
i honestly could not care who gets elected.

i'm going to renounce my citizenship and move to a country primarily populated with alpacas, then just have an alpaca farm, sell their fur, and party with natives i can't understand.

yeahh dudes.

Terrapin
10-18-2012, 02:13 PM
Yeah, Obama has suffered through the Republican camp in the house. But measures which have been signed and approved, listed above and more, are hideous on his record as they increase government where it isn't needed and certainly isn't helping. No promise of a plan if action to turn our current state around successfully. There's also the more socialist take on the economy which I simply can't agree with and won't support. While I agree with you that the LGBT and abortion/contraceptive ideas of the right are abhorrent.

Simply stated, to align extremely liberal or extremely conservative on all views is destroying us. It's these individuals on both sides of the aisle which find us in the dismay we currently face. Without moderates and independents fighting back these individuals, and offering more options to actually better the nation, we're fucked. That's the team worth supporting.

petticoat
10-18-2012, 02:18 PM
... But measures which have been signed and approved, listed above and more, are hideous on his record as they increase government where it isn't needed and certainly isn't helping.



Example of the hideousness mentioned?

Terrapin
10-18-2012, 02:54 PM
TSA increased budget, NDAA provisions passed through to strip our rights, increased drone strikes, support for the banks, support for the Fed, proposed cutting military spending by only cutting spending over projected figures (not what we currently pay) which means military spending will continue to rise, a substantial rise in DEA raids (more than tripling the figures), and skyrocketing in warrantless spying. We find ourselves in more of a police state than ever before. Figures show that Obama administration has killed double the people than Bush did through bombing Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.

Notice that many of these measures were promised that we'd see change in, but instead we saw either no change or change in the wrong direction. I can't support anyone with this track record. That's the fatal flaw of the two-party system. Either side would support all of these measures, while I find them all horrific.

Cringeon
10-18-2012, 03:05 PM
My life has been good under Obama, and I like the direction he wants to head. I worked for a company 7+ years that while I worked there, got bought out by Bain Capital (after Romney left, but it's ran with those principals he touts) and basically saw a bottom-up reduction in staff, and forcing people to do more with less, while raising expectations. Basically, fighting against it for a while only lasted so long and was fired (State of Utah later ruled at no fault of my own).

I'm a firm believer in social welfare, because it was the difference of being able to pay my mortgage or not. It took me 9 months to finally get a job, and that was in a place like Utah that has a good job market. I also have family who's kids are on state ran insurance because they can't afford coverage. I do think there are checks and balances to these kind of things, the current system is not perfect - but it only needs to more forward, not backward. Any system should be improved/enhanced, not downsized.

My new job is working within Benefits Administration for medical, dental/vision, etc. There's a lot of noise about health care reform, but it's seriously been the saving grace for so many people. My sister-in-law was able to avoid crippling medical bills because she could stay on her dad's insurance. The pre-existing stipulation I know if not a difference of life or death, but having a good life or being destitute. Costs are going up, because the carriers and providers are not able to get as much as there from the system. Once the personal mandate kicks in, it's going to add so many more customers to these carriers which is going to bring down cost. I hate the idea that it's wrong for the government to make you buy something, but perfectly OK for them to make decisions about a person's body/family.

Thanks to Pell Grants not available during Bush, my wife was able to get her 4yr right after HS and also thanks to the Home Buyer Credit that happen in 2009, we were able to actually purchase a home rather than be stuck renting. Both major factors for building a life.

The thing that kills me right now is the oil issue. Green/Renewable Energy is the future, it has to happen. There's no denying that we have to get off oil eventually, and I hate the push to expand more oil manufacturing to bring down costs, and then focus on getting off later. Kicking it down the road is going to make it worse, because once reserves dry up - the end result will be worse. If you as the consumer are unhappy with how much it costs to fill up your car, buy a new car. You'd imagine the GOP would be all about new energy, because it's a booming market and would jumpstart US industry. Fuck, we could have the rebirth of the US auto industry if we as a country just gave the middle finger to oil and just went after better/cleaner technology. Old technology is more expensive to operate. Same reason we buy fridges that consume less power, washers that use less water. US Consumers are not given enough incentive to make the change, so it keeps the oil demand going and the price will keep going up.

There's things I disagree with about Obama's term, but I don't think all decisions fall only on his shoulders. I can't imagine how many years some people think it takes to turn a country around, or that the president is literally the single person who decides where we go, or how quickly we do things. There needs to be a major change in all levels of government, because it's beyond outdated and is falling behind the speed of the international community. The GOP is a fascist party, and I agree the two party system is broken. I'm all for more 3rd parties with serious contenders and if there was one who I agreed with most, I'd vote for them.

Terrapin
10-18-2012, 03:18 PM
There's things I disagree with about Obama's term, but I don't think all decisions fall only on his shoulders. I can't imagine how many years some people think it takes to turn a country around, or that the president is literally the single person who decides where we go, or how quickly we do things. There needs to be a major change in all levels of government, because it's beyond outdated and is falling behind the speed of the international community. The GOP is a fascist party, and I agree the two party system is broken. I'm all for more 3rd parties with serious contenders and if there was one who I agreed with most, I'd vote for them.
Golden. I agree with everything here.

The majority are going to find their own benefits out either the left or right, depending what helps out their personal political stance, social status, and age group. My main beef is with any and all extremists from either side. They are a plague to the well-being of this country and I have no sympathy for either side getting blamed for what is essentially their fault. Unfortunately, myself and the nation have to suffer right alongside these inadequacies. The leaders from this two party fiasco have done nothing but hurt this country as a result of partisan ignorance and it's frustrating to no end.

petticoat
10-18-2012, 03:24 PM
Terrapin, I appreciate your fervor, but, while considering your statements, I remain skeptical as to your sources that I fear may include such luminaries as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh and from the shadows, the Koch brothers. Anyone who cares about the females in their lives, or the LGBT people in their lives and also about the environment and "a social floor that no one is allowed to drop below", will vote Obama.

Listen to the President of Ireland talk about how Americans are seen abroad since Obama was elected. There's a reason the entire world looks upon is more kindly since electing Obama. The whole 'rant' is fabulous:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBuqfHLkKck&feature=related

Terrapin
10-18-2012, 03:31 PM
^Give all arguments a quick Google and you'll see I wouldn't list something from Coulter, Limbaugh, or Koch in anything ever. You can't slant basic facts and stats, anyway, so there's no reason for skepticism.

I understand an improvement in foreign affairs is a major bonus to the Obama administration, and he's going to kill it on the 3rd debate in this area, but that has nothing to do with how I view the undertakings of his administration as a plague on this country. I very much care about women's rights and the LGBT community, but cannot vote on a party based on two issues, and will not. I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils because, either way, it's still an evil.

petticoat
10-18-2012, 04:00 PM
Alright, I’ll fire up Google, what the hell. Let’s see.
You complained that the increased budget for the TDA? Per USA Today, Obama “raised the security fee on each one-way flight to $5 from $2.50 per leg, while phasing in further increases to $7.50 over the next five years. He also proposed a $100 departure fee for each flight. In the first year of the security fee, the Transportation Security Administration would get $117 million and $200 million would help reduce the national debt. Of the $25.5 billion over the next decade, $18 billion would go toward debt reduction.” And to that, I say: So?
Per “NDAA provisions passed through to strip our rights,” do you mean the part where there was a 1.6 percent pay increase for all service members, and an increase in military healthcare enrollment and copay fees? Or is it the part about sanctioning oil from Iran due to their developing a nuclear program? If it’s “indefinite detention” that worries you, that’s good, that worries me too, but it’s not going to affect me as much as an armed Iran might.
I hate the ‘lesser of two evils’ as much as anyone, but that’s what it is right now. If Romney wins, there goes healthcare, there goes that social floor, there goes any chance that marijuana will be legalized, and the rest of the world will hate us again and even more. That’s where the danger lies in voting third party, because those votes are needed elsewhere. I admire idealism, I do, I’m one of the most idealistic people ever, I support the Occupy Movement, I give people spare change, and share my matches, but I think this election is more important to risk a Republican win over voting my conscience.

Terrapin
10-18-2012, 04:25 PM
TSA infringe on our rights as a people. Simple as that. To support them by increasing their funding is supporting an unnecessary evil of government regulation.

Yes, I was referring to the indefinite detention without due process. That is an extreme danger to our rights as citizens and therefore another extreme evil to Americans. Something that should not be supported by anyone. It's going to prove fruitless and merely strip away Constitutional rights strictly laid out for us.

There is no saying that a liberal win is a win for marijuana legalization as I have repeated pointed out that DEA raids on marijuana distribution have tripled since Obama has taken office. A direct opposition to his proposed sentiments.

Mandatory healthcare is also another evil I felt not worth mentioning as it's embedded as a difference in partisanship, but yeah, it's an unnecessary reform that we need to go back through. It gives unnecessary power to the government and hikes up taxes where we don't need it, putting employment at a standstill. Both Romney and Obama wrote the provisions for this healthcare reform. Something they both agreed on initially, that will actually hurt the nation further. Fancy that.

The reason the rest of the world hates us is our continuing influence in foreign nations. By sticking our noses in places it really doesn't need to be. Both parties look to increase those efforts, and I'm all for getting the fuck out of there. I can't support a party that sees it otherwise. We need to focus inward, desperately. Find those alternative means of energy, balance the budget, audit the Fed, take care of social reform, and then we can branch back out to influence the world. We are stretched far too thin now. We can't handle stretching it further.

Having the ideal to perpetuate this broken system any longer is only further contributing to the problem. I won't be a part of that problem and take solace in that fact. We are going to find ourselves in the exact same position 4 years from now whichever way this election goes. Just like how this convo isn't getting anywhere. And that's politics for ya.

Cringeon
10-18-2012, 05:02 PM
Pot will never get legal on the federal level first. It's a state issue, and it's going to continue to grow until a federal mandate is passed. It's going to be the same thing with same sex marriage. I don't like the pot raids, but it's a shit position because it is federally illegal. It seems there is still an abundance of available product locally in CA, and from when I visited Denver for sure. I'd like pot to be legal, but I just don't think it's realistic to think that's going to happen until we have real state reform. People move the country forward. I think Obama actually just said he would not go after users of medical pot, but I could be wrong. Not sure if he said he'd ignore the whole business side.

petticoat
10-18-2012, 05:50 PM
I'm not seeing how TSA "interferes with our rights as people" at all. Sounds like a decent way to pay down the deficit to me. I mean it's not like they're probing everyone behind a curtain or anything.

We're all pretty set in what we think and I'm disappointed, for myself, as I enjoy having my mind changed.

I understand that marijuana legalization comes from and will have to continue to come from states and work up to federal. I also understand that Republicans, as an entity, do not support legalization. Nor do they support stem cell research. They don't "believe in" evolution or climate change, and would rather see poor people starve than get a leg up. They're all about getting people born, but once the fetus has left the womb, it better start being a productive citizen. They're against PBS and Planned Parenthood. Fuck them. If Romney is elected, we'll get what we deserve.

blue angel
10-26-2012, 09:45 AM
I am everything that inspires me and it's neither which way, it's loose.

Satan
11-22-2012, 07:03 PM
I'm pro-drug, pro-gun, pro-any kind of marriage, pro-choice, and anti-war. So, I don't know what the fuck that means.

Swede
12-11-2012, 12:17 PM
I hope you understand what I want to tell you. We who have grown up with socialism, and are known for socialist politic are not always that happy with how our politicians control the society. There are a form of right-wind in the socialistik partie pursued here and a lot of public companies have been privatized. This has created a widening gap between the classes than what we are used to. It has created a new form of poverty where the single mother / father can not afford economic livelihood but is often told to go to various forms of voluntary assistance. This has given us a homelessness that just rises and the apartments that were previously rented flats have also gone over in private ownership. An apartment costs the equivalent of minimum $ 150 000 or more, and it requires two jobs to clear out such an economy. Salaries for a worker is something from 3000$ depending your job. Of course, we have unions here too but they have been linked to the Social Democratic Party, and now when it's right windy?, it is perhaps not surprising that they lose power. We can see that great companies are raising their own salaries and distributes parachute salaries to CEOs that is skyhigh while the worker suffers from more insecure employment status and are easier to kick out. We can see that there is much financial interest in what was once the governmental activities, like hospitals, medical services, pharmacies, so on are being sold out. The upper class are better off while the working class get's worse. Please, all of you who think that Sweden is a paradise for total socialistic politic, think again. Those days are gone forever. We live in a capitalist society and it is totally being built so strong that there is no possibility of regression, not without a revolution.. Ok folks, I'm off. Laters/Swede.

filthytothecore
12-13-2012, 03:19 AM
Capitalism seems to destroy those countries that must imitate it or likewise are forced to or suffer reparations for doing something or another, The sad fact is the people suffer, not the traitors and bastards (politicians) in charge of it all, A country can only get so filled and expand so much before it collapses upon itself. It is likewise true that a True Socialist country would do the same if it over reaches it's strengths and it being spread out becomes a weakness.

crazybitch
12-13-2012, 09:54 PM
I'm a pacifist.

crazybitch
12-14-2012, 02:39 AM
And a schizophrenic, so you could say I see both sides. lol.

Dysmorphia
12-14-2012, 06:51 PM
I don’t align myself with any particular political party; I vote for whomever I believe will best serve my interests. That said, in a country where ‘democracy’ is a legally enforced selection between two political parties, there really is not much of a choice.

Ideally, the whole two-party thing needs to be abolished. A government consisting of two opposing parties is a very outdated system.

OneOfTheBeautifulPeople
12-20-2012, 02:59 PM
I write with my right hand cause I was born that way. Really I couldn't give a rats ass about politics or any of that shit. I am a felon and can't vote anyway. But if I were some how able to get hired (not likely) I would be forced to pay taxes. So fuck politics and laws this is not a free country as advertised.

ThreeEyedGod
12-20-2012, 03:51 PM
^ be chill, brah

J.Lecter
12-31-2012, 12:21 PM
I write with my right hand cause I was born that way. Really I couldn't give a rats ass about politics or any of that shit. I am a felon and can't vote anyway. But if I were some how able to get hired (not likely) I would be forced to pay taxes. So fuck politics and laws this is not a free country as advertised.

I write with my right hand but mouse (computer) with my left out of necessity (joint health). I don't care about politics either since the general public never knows the entire story/situation/deal thats reported on the news or any other media. I do have a job and I do pay taxes, and I'm thankful for our (Canada) health care system, as broken as it might be . . . even so, our country isn't free either, but what country is?

I'm pro-choice, pro-war, pro-marriage (same sex), anti-gun, anti-drugs, anti-religion . . . I don't label myself right or left or anything else, and no one else should label themselves either.

. . . that's a bit of what I think.

Edit: I should say, I try not to label myself or others . . . I'm human I can get pissed off both at myself and others and may use inappropriate titles.

johncraze
01-08-2013, 07:39 PM
I think many people, specially americans confuse the terms "left and right", with all the cliches and stereotypes they've known from both the republican and democratic parties. Reading through some of the posts around here, left seems to be associated with tree hugging abortion loving hippies, and right with uptight born again christian rednecks .

So in fact, when asking "Are you left or right?", the question becomes: "which of the two different perspectives of achieving the common good do you adhere to?", so resuming the two trends in a nutshell, a leftist perspective rises up high the collective needs and welfare as the path to achieving the common good, while a rightist perspective upholds the individual as the center of society, and upholds his or her personal responsability over his or her own life.

These are the basic ways of distinguishing the notions of "left and right", from the notions of "conservative and liberal" ( that just imply, personal notions on social topics, rather than political ones on how the government must be lead towards its fundamental objectives).

So answering to the question, I'm right, specifically a libertarian. I don't tend to like interventionist politics unless if it is rather necessary, I absolutely believe that the progress of the individual means the advance of the collective, and living in the place I live (Venezuela), I'm rather aware of the consequences of a "big government" overruning the economic life of my country. And they're catastrophic.

Divine
02-07-2013, 02:12 AM
I'm neither because both are extremes.

Divine
02-07-2013, 02:14 AM
I write with my right hand but mouse (computer) with my left out of necessity (joint health). I don't care about politics either since the general public never knows the entire story/situation/deal thats reported on the news or any other media. I do have a job and I do pay taxes, and I'm thankful for our (Canada) health care system, as broken as it might be . . . even so, our country isn't free either, but what country is?

I'm pro-choice, pro-war, pro-marriage (same sex), anti-gun, anti-drugs, anti-religion . . . I don't label myself right or left or anything else, and no one else should label themselves either.

. . . that's a bit of what I think.

Edit: I should say, I try not to label myself or others . . . I'm human I can get pissed off both at myself and others and may use inappropriate titles.

What does pro war even mean?

Do you root for your nation to actively search for countries to engage in warfare with?

M Tragedy666
02-09-2013, 08:23 AM
Both... I'm a social liberal and an economic conservative. I agree with abortion, legalization of drugs/prostitution/gambling/stem cell research. I think people should be free to do whatever they please, so long as they don't hurt anyone who doesn't wish to be hurt. I also believe in guns. We should be able to arm ourselves. I hate the gun control debate. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

However, I am not for giving much to the poor. I think we should help others, but not at the expense of ourselves. I don't think the U.S. government should hand cash and food stamps to drug addict gang members in housing projects who purposely get pregnant to get more government aid and funding. It's just taking advantage of, and abusing, our generous system to help people. Those people should be left to die if they show no will or initiative. Survival of the fittest.

Here's a quote from Benjamin Franklin:

"I am for doing good to the poor,but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

Generally I am very left. But perhaps am right on a few issues. But I hate Democrats and Republicans. And I hate these left/right debates. Can we not just be ambidextrous?

filthytothecore
02-09-2013, 09:39 PM
I thin right and left can be an incorrect term one can be something whilst taking from both the right and left and subscribing to either option, It doesn't make the ideal great or a revolution but t remains something profain in this world of neutrality where everything is a jig saw puzzle and not straight forward.

filthytothecore
02-09-2013, 09:41 PM
Both... I'm a social liberal and an economic conservative. I agree with abortion, legalization of drugs/prostitution/gambling/stem cell research. I think people should be free to do whatever they please, so long as they don't hurt anyone who doesn't wish to be hurt. I also believe in guns. We should be able to arm ourselves. I hate the gun control debate. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

However, I am not for giving much to the poor. I think we should help others, but not at the expense of ourselves. I don't think the U.S. government should hand cash and food stamps to drug addict gang members in housing projects who purposely get pregnant to get more government aid and funding. It's just taking advantage of, and abusing, our generous system to help people. Those people should be left to die if they show no will or initiative. Survival of the fittest.

Here's a quote from Benjamin Franklin:

"I am for doing good to the poor,but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

Generally I am very left. But perhaps am right on a few issues. But I hate Democrats and Republicans. And I hate these left/right debates. Can we not just be ambidextrous?
I think you and I are similar to a certain degree it's just I rely on the fittest and most intelligent of each should be sperated and a sort of council should operate maybe 12 members some of each race to co-operate.

johncraze
02-10-2013, 11:24 AM
Both... I'm a social liberal and an economic conservative. I agree with abortion, legalization of drugs/prostitution/gambling/stem cell research. I think people should be free to do whatever they please, so long as they don't hurt anyone who doesn't wish to be hurt. I also believe in guns. We should be able to arm ourselves. I hate the gun control debate. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

However, I am not for giving much to the poor. I think we should help others, but not at the expense of ourselves. I don't think the U.S. government should hand cash and food stamps to drug addict gang members in housing projects who purposely get pregnant to get more government aid and funding. It's just taking advantage of, and abusing, our generous system to help people. Those people should be left to die if they show no will or initiative. Survival of the fittest.

Here's a quote from Benjamin Franklin:

"I am for doing good to the poor,but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

Generally I am very left. But perhaps am right on a few issues. But I hate Democrats and Republicans. And I hate these left/right debates. Can we not just be ambidextrous?

You're basicly a libertarian, I share your opinions, good quote by the way!

richard
03-16-2013, 06:12 AM
I am a fiscal liberal and a social libertarian. In other words I have pretty much have no representation by the American system. Republicans (including Ron Paul and his fiscal libertarian bullshit) and their slightly less conservative counterparts, the Democrats, do not accurately reflect much of anything resembling my political values.

filthytothecore
03-16-2013, 10:52 PM
I am ultimately a A American Nationalist, I offer the doctrine is if you are here and work for your keep your life life is worth it, If you do not you are only a pain for those that pay taxes and thus by multiplying and intermingling like whores, You awaken a fury that hasn't been felt in 60+ years. We must RISE AS AMERICANS, against consumerism and egalitarianism, We must bring down the ideal of a centralized bank and in it's stead we must have a currency dictated not by shareholders and politicians but by the people! A land divided into territories where certain goods are more valuable than others whilst retaining or industry and productivity than in other regions.

We must unite as a nation not as the so called left and so called right would have you think (Two sides of the same coin) We must unite as a people under a patriotic ideal but not follow by blindness to any political cause that harms our as a peoples well being, We must unite or we shall fall as a nation in which jobs and corporations are outsourced to nations where they work for little more than a equal of an American dollar.

We must rise from the servitude of political parties that only have the best interests of the politicians in mind and not the people! Asskissers, moochers for paychecks from certain interest parties that are against the rights and beliefs of The American people, I shall end this with another thought, It is with a heavy heart that many wish to say this but the fault of our problem is letting two parties have absolute control of the political spectrum and media with little to no advantage to lesser parties that are more helpful to freedom and independence from a government bent on the destruction of anything sane and rational.

Atom
03-18-2013, 04:43 PM
I am ultimately a blubbering, goddamn, idiot

It's this sort of honesty that keeps me coming back here.

icon
03-25-2013, 08:50 AM
I probably lean a little right, but I'm not a republican. Nor am I a democrat. I use my own judgement on each issue rather than following some kind of bullshit list of rules.

stagesofcoma
06-29-2013, 11:17 PM
I'd probably classify myself as an anarcho-pascifist. I used to believe in politics and that my country is as free as it claims. Over the years, I became so disillusioned and began to realize just how broken the system really is. I believe the next revolution will be one of the mind, and that's one thing they can't yet stop.

BreakingYourMomsOldMound
03-12-2014, 10:39 PM
Softworn and so-cialism.

Allycat
03-13-2014, 04:22 AM
Leftist to be sure, but DEFINATELY not a bleeding heart. Im strongly socialist. But certainly not totalitarian. Ideally, anarchist...but only when ppl can responsibly govern themselves. I entirely agree with gay rights, marriage and to be a parent.

However, I hold conservative personal mores. For example, I feel that ppl should be married before they even conceive a child. I also believe that to the best of their ability, people should support themselves and their children. It pisses me off no end when people make a lifetime career of welfare and work the system, while others who fall thru the cracks suffer greatly. While I sympathize with ppl who are driven to prostitution , I don't see it as a viable career choice. Instead folks should be given every opportunity to lead a better life.

I feel drugs should be legalized or at least decriminalized. Hopefully, this would get them out of the hands of violent gangs.

Edit: about parenting: if a single person wants to have a child but doesn't want a partner I am fine with that. For example, I have a friend who'd adopted an orphan from India. She has no partner, but a number of friends. She is an excellent parent to her son. What a do have a problem with is is when single parents have a revolving door or live in partners. I can't see how that is good for children.

Shock Hazard
03-13-2014, 12:34 PM
I don't subscribe to the illusions of a 'left' or 'right.' Every scenario usually has more than two dimensions.

Alterkaker66
03-13-2014, 03:29 PM
Capitalism knows no mercy. Success is measured by money and power. The middle class is being killed off by big business, supported by Federal and State governments that outsource white collar jobs. It is almost impossible to get a 40 hr a week job with benefits. If you get sick or have a financial tragedy you can't get help from public sources till you hit rock bottom. So, why do people accept a welfare/food stamp/shuck and jive life? Because unless you are an exceptional individual you have to be born into money to make money. Even a decent education is no guarantee. We are becoming a throwback to the late 1800's when there were only two classes, rich and poor. What to do about it? Take a page out of the Public Works Administration handbook, add mandatory birth control for public school students, stop outsourcing everything from consumer help lines to groceries, and encourage a strong local economy. We need an America where everyone works at what they can to receive at least the basics of life. We need to have local governments that care about local issues. Like clean air and water, housing and food production. We need to have State and Federal government officials who didn't get there with the help of big business or get re-elected by campaigning on the job. We need to be able to care for our own citizens before becoming involved in world problems or world economies. Do you know that because of the electoral college your individual vote is only counted by percentage? How about the fact that the official parties pick the candidates in the first place? Am I left or right. Neither. I am a humanist who believes that human beings don't give a shit about anything but themselves. I would like to see every person have what they need to prosper, but not at the expense of others. Maybe I am best described as a tyrannical seperatist socialist.

filthytothecore
03-22-2014, 01:37 PM
I'd say I'm an Authoritarian Center leaning myself it's simple I see qualities in both sides but really think both are full of shit in some regards we must filter that out, A big government is needed because some people have to be told what to do and others just need help so I'm probably high in the center of it all.

Alterkaker66
03-24-2014, 11:30 AM
A big government is needed because some people have to be told what to do and others just need help so I'm probably high in the center of it all.
So very true. Without the Supreme Court the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would still be a dream. To hell with states rights.

Angel of Sorrow
04-02-2014, 11:38 AM
Capitalism knows no mercy. Success is measured by money and power. The middle class is being killed off by big business, supported by Federal and State governments that outsource white collar jobs. It is almost impossible to get a 40 hr a week job with benefits. If you get sick or have a financial tragedy you can't get help from public sources till you hit rock bottom. So, why do people accept a welfare/food stamp/shuck and jive life? Because unless you are an exceptional individual you have to be born into money to make money. Even a decent education is no guarantee. We are becoming a throwback to the late 1800's when there were only two classes, rich and poor. What to do about it? Take a page out of the Public Works Administration handbook, add mandatory birth control for public school students, stop outsourcing everything from consumer help lines to groceries, and encourage a strong local economy. We need an America where everyone works at what they can to receive at least the basics of life. We need to have local governments that care about local issues. Like clean air and water, housing and food production. We need to have State and Federal government officials who didn't get there with the help of big business or get re-elected by campaigning on the job. We need to be able to care for our own citizens before becoming involved in world problems or world economies. Do you know that because of the electoral college your individual vote is only counted by percentage? How about the fact that the official parties pick the candidates in the first place? Am I left or right. Neither. I am a humanist who believes that human beings don't give a shit about anything but themselves. I would like to see every person have what they need to prosper, but not at the expense of others. Maybe I am best described as a tyrannical seperatist socialist.

I came in here ready to say I was right-handed and got more than I bargained for. lol I agree with you, Alterkaker... especially the first part of what you said. I DO believe people can succeed by hard work, BUT hard work does NOT always guarantee success or even being able to pay your bills. Some of the hardest working people struggle terribly. I was raised by die-hard liberal parents who struggled all their lives to put food on the table and we never had much of anything. I was very liberal when I was younger, but I'm more in the middle now.... I don't like the extremes of left or right to be honest....basically what Alterkaker said, "I am a humanist."

Whisky And Speed
04-03-2014, 06:48 PM
FUCK POLITICS, it destroyed everything around me .

The Ghoul
04-04-2014, 04:16 PM
Center-right I guess.

I lean to the left on social issues, like gay rights, abortion, drugs legalization but I am quite on the right on economy issues.

FuckmanQ
04-06-2014, 11:21 PM
neither.

Tater
04-14-2014, 09:33 PM
I came in this thread with a glimmer of hope that it'd be about dicks and dressing preference but it's about politics and I'm out.

Terrapin
04-15-2014, 03:53 AM
I came in this thread with a glimmer of hope that it'd be about dicks and dressing preference but it's about politics and I'm out.
Dressing preferences in an "Art and Philosophies" sub-forum? C'mon now.

Mine hangs to the left, btw. Liberal dick. You're welcome.

Penance Sentence
04-24-2014, 01:59 AM
Neuroplasticity of both brain hemispheres activates complete self-awareness of the individual. I believe this to be an inversion of the meaning of the Christian Trinity, which was known to certain groups before contemporary times. It kind of reminds me of the activation of both 'good' and 'evil' to manifest the most honest human experience. Together, 'evil' and 'good' become the three-dimensional human trapped inside a two-dimensional universe that bears shapes three-dimensionally. Certain individuals have referred to something like this as 'ancient logic.'

Those mythological religions of Earth's history certainly do contain an air of truth to certain ethics. But, if you couple that with "God" and the supernatural, and make the words expressed in religious texts cryptic enough, then you have people either supporting those religions and getting the wrong things out of them or people condemning those religions and getting the wrong things out of them.

It takes more than mere etymological arguments to the understand the logic therein. That's not to be taken in a divine sense either, for there is no divine. But there are some things that seem divine when 'rulers' orchestrate such docile 'followers.'

Interesting discussion from what I've read of you posters here; interesting answers.

Homeostasis
05-16-2014, 07:05 PM
I'm neither. Right wing and left wing is a blunted distraction, designed to keep people from tearing down their systems Bane-style. Because having two options only implies that we have a choice in which way we're all fucked. Democracy is a delusion. Tony Blair was one of the most left-wing politicians in the world when he was first elected, and look what he ended up doing. When politicians get past a certain point, they seem to become obsessed with their own legacy, regardless of which wing they originate from. They're all the same. Delusional, self-obsessed morons. They'd gladly destroy our entire world if it meant they'd be seen in a better light. And some of them came close with that bullshit "Cold War."

Penance Sentence
05-16-2014, 09:11 PM
I'm neither. Right wing and left wing is a blunted distraction, designed to keep people from tearing down their systems Bane-style. Because having two options only implies that we have a choice in which way we're all fucked. Democracy is a delusion. Tony Blair was one of the most left-wing politicians in the world when he was first elected, and look what he ended up doing. When politicians get past a certain point, they seem to become obsessed with their own legacy, regardless of which wing they originate from. They're all the same. Delusional, self-obsessed morons. They'd gladly destroy our entire world if it meant they'd be seen in a better light. And some of them came close with that bullshit "Cold War."

I could not agree more; it would be impossible.

FeedYourHead
05-10-2015, 09:07 AM
Can somebody who actually knows things please explain to me what the fuck is going on in the UK with the election that just happened? I don't know a thing about the political parties and I'd love to understand what these election results mean and why people are/were protesting.

Golden Eel
05-10-2015, 01:37 PM
Can somebody who actually knows things please explain to me what the fuck is going on in the UK with the election that just happened? I don't know a thing about the political parties and I'd love to understand what these election results mean and why people are/were protesting.

http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/358yas/eli5_uk_elections_and_candidates_2015/

FeedYourHead
05-10-2015, 01:59 PM
Well alright then. I guess forget i posted anything.

Two Faced Egg (23)
06-01-2015, 02:38 PM
I don't know much about it , Which one wants to plant Electrodes in Your grey matter and control You with remote controls ? that's what I want to do , That'Ss what I suspect we should do Mix Master Tea , Create HaPpiness , Like Mr.Huxley said , them lil' Human Peeeples are not really haPpy & they are streSsed for some reason , really everyone lets just stand down , & let the the Multiantiona corporations just do what they want , I give consent for Lockheed Martin to make nuclear deals with china , Lobby for re-writes of laws so they can sell Iran nuclear tech , sell Saudi Arabia fighter jets , Qatar & United arab emirates Tooo ! Cheers' ( nottt )

Manson15Marilyn
08-16-2016, 07:27 AM
I'm in the middle, but very libertarian. So as you can imagine, I'm nowhere near in agreeance with the current parties today. Kind of a difficult position to be in because I really have nobody to vote for. They're too authoritarian and too extreme usually, the green party too. And the "libertarian party" are just republican lite, and are more authoritarian than their name suggests. Sigh, not in my lifetime probably will we see a truly libertarian governance.

As for political philosophy, I'm a believer in communism; the Marx brand in particular. The USSR never made it to a communist governance, China is as capitalist as they come and are just using communism as propaganda, and North Korea are way too authoritarian even if their people prefer it that way. We may never see a communist country in this lifetime

filthytothecore
10-08-2016, 08:03 PM
In my old age I'm moving beyond either in reality I favor extremes of both that could possibly work but tossing away the rubbish is a wise consideration.

Enname
10-08-2016, 09:47 PM
The down side of being a historian is you know nothing works well, and no one ever learns. There are just some parts of the spectra just are moderately less shit, and that allow gains that are positive. So I am whatever causes the least harm. Whether this means oscillating between wanting to burn it all down, embracing anarchism (except I find them all to be mind numbingly conservative), or something that resembles socialism (health care, love it) ... or the days I decide I have a sudden yen for fragmented oligarchy circa the tenth century (governance by obligation and negotiation). Well then, so be it.

Idunno
01-14-2017, 05:54 AM
Personally, if they want to light fires I think they should let them all burn, and if they're on the roofs then bring them down with bullets. Ingrates turn up here supposedly seeking refuge, we keep them safe while doing the necessary legal work and they act like rabid animals? Fuck them all, they're not people we want here: and by here I mean on Earth.

Sorry for quoting you on an old post, but are you saying they should all get punished for the actions of few? Also, "Fuck them all, they're not people we want" sounds bad for obvious reasons that I don't even need to explain.

mr.svperstar13
01-16-2017, 04:33 PM
I'm not too into politics, but I took one of those political compasses and was right in the center (same as Bernie Sanders apparently).

The Empirical Guy
02-06-2017, 04:49 AM
Sorry for quoting you on an old post, but are you saying they should all get punished for the actions of few? Also, "Fuck them all, they're not people we want" sounds bad for obvious reasons that I don't even need to explain.

Yeah, I had to go back and re-read my whole post for context here... this was a long time ago!

To clarify, I hate the idea that innocents be punished for the crimes of others. That is never what I would want in an ideal situation. At the same time, however, people will get away with whatever shit they can get away with and, maybe sometimes, you just have to be ruthless to a small group of innocents to get the whole lot in line. These immigrants all know they can get away with this sort of behaviour for the most part. It's quite possible, depending on how good of a mood I was in at the time, that when I said "let them all burn" I was merely referring to the fires and not the actual refugees. By that I mean if they want to light their free houses on fire, then ideally the people themselves would be kept safe but the buildings are just left to burn to the ground. Come night time or the rain and they complain they have no shelter, we'd just shrug and say "we gave you some, but you burned it". Word would get around pretty quick that there was no fucking around or taking their bullshit, and they'd stop lighting fires.

As for "Fuck them all, they're not people we want", given the rapid change in the racial tension situation here in Australia since I made that post, I can immediately see how that can read bad. It's still true though. To be honest, I don't care what race or colour or religion or whatever you are, if you're the sort of person that throws a tanty and starts a violent riot just because you get given FREE SHIT while and LOOKED AFTER ON OTHER'S MONEY while the paperwork goes through, then that bodes ill for what you'll be like once you are allowed out in to our society and that's not the sort of behaviour we or, I presume, any country wants from its people.

scourgey
12-07-2017, 11:16 AM
Left, unconsciously. Pretending to be right most of the time.

Absolution
12-12-2017, 12:24 PM
I'd consider myself a classic liberal which unwillingly puts me in the center. Both the left and right have good and bad ideas and if I'd have it my way I'd vote on policies on a per issue basis, not a party basis. Of course that's not how democracy works so I end up voting for one of the parties around the center, the milquetoast non stance vote.

BreakingYourMomsOldMound
12-15-2017, 08:35 AM
My views have changed a bit over the years.

Here's what I believe now: Keep capitalism but tax the rich until there are no more billionaires. Gut ineffective social programs. Keep entitlements that actually contribute to the quality of life of people who work, want to work, or are disabled. Cut military spending by over 50%. Close corporate tax loopholes. Kill foreign aid. Cut state funding of healthcare for people over the age of 80. You've lived long enough. Make state schools tuition-free for high-performing students. Invest a much higher percentage of the budget on infrastructure. Invest and much, much, much higher percentage of the budget on funding scientific and technological advancements, especially computer science.

Also, make people pass IQ and citizenship tests in order to vote and have children.

Golden Eel
12-15-2017, 09:27 AM
This thread is dumb and the guy who started it was probably 19 years old and didn't know shit - to such a degree that he thought "Are you left or right?" was a question that wasn't retarded.

Shangri-LIE
12-16-2017, 05:38 AM
I've always said since my early HS years that I was a Libertarian with meritocratic beliefs, except for last year whenever I impulsively pulled the fuck it alarm lever and wanted to see how a Kakistrocracy would work. Anyway, even though I've already commented in here, I really don't give a fuck considering that we don't actually have representatives and our system is in fact not a democracy. It's a business. So, more and more I am in the business of just sipping on a drink while eating some snacks and laughing at people who want to create change within the system even though elections are decided by/laws are passed by/policies are drawn up by corporations and our inept intelligence agencies who have a very extensive history of fabricating stories (lying). Yeah. So, I guess I lean more towards laughter now.

FilthyGod
06-03-2018, 01:34 AM
Neither and not Center, I just want to be left alone by everyone as far as political matters.

S.D.
06-03-2018, 02:45 AM
Neither and not Center, I just want to be left alone by everyone as far as political matters.

Peeped your code yo.

FuckmanQ
06-04-2018, 08:51 AM
LMAO.

crazybitch
02-08-2020, 05:23 PM
The BLUE TSUNAMI is COMING!

crazybitch
07-07-2020, 02:57 PM
15 point lead bitches my work here is almost done.

Penance Sentence
08-14-2020, 03:09 PM
The BLUE TSUNAMI is COMING!

You crazy hot fucking BITCH. ������