PDA

View Full Version : 'A Conservative is a Liberal who's been mugged'


Volcana
Oct 24th, 2007, 04:24 AM
An old political saying in the USA. Not often challenged, to be honest. But recently, I've been giving it some thought, because a) there's a presidential election coming up, and b) it fails in the face of fact.

African-Americans in the USA are more often the victims of crime than any other racial group. They are also the most liberal.

In other words, the liberal who get mugged the most are the most liberal.

So .. why?

Some of it, of course, is that 'conservative' and 'liberal', in post WWII usage, are code words for whether or not you support using the Federal government to combat white racism. (I commend to anyone who wants to understand the development of race relations in the USA in the last 50 years "Eyes on the Prize", and "Eyes on the Prize II".)

Given that reality, you simply aren't going to see many conservative Blacks in the last fifty years. And given the political re-alignment that made the Republicans the party that opposed equal rights for Blacks, and the Democrats the party that supported equal rights for Blacks, all the crime in the world isn't going to produce many Black Republicans. This is especially ironic given that it was the Republicans that ended slavery, and it was Repubican support that allowed the limited civil rights legislation of the fifties and sixties to pass. But I digress ....

'A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged'

'A liberal is a conservative with a catastrphic illness'

How do such simplistic political statements come into common usage?

Food for thought, eh?

NOTE: [10-24-07]: When I say Black people are 'liberal', I'm focusing on how Blacks vote, relative to the rest of the population.

Sam L
Oct 24th, 2007, 05:34 AM
I can only speak for myself. I can definitely say that about 7 years ago I was more "left wing liberal" than I am now. I was very anti-war, very pro-choice and vehemently wanted gay marriage. Basically a rebel without a cause.

But now my opinions on those issues have swung a bit more to the right. By all means there are still issues very important to me like ecological conservation and global warming. I'm no tree hugger but I have enough intelligence to know that this is something we shouldn't be myopic about. We're talking about long-term survival of the species here.

I think the difference is that before I was a bleeding heart (i.e. blind) liberal but now I'm more a mature liberal who's willing to look at both sides of the coin. I'm not by any means a conservative though.

That's why I can't stand bleeding heart liberals because they just subscribe to a set of values that everyone in that group must subscribe to. The usual: gay marriage is a must, abortion anytime anywhere, all wars are bad, Israel is the devil, the US is guilty of imperialism BS. The problem is that these people hijack important issues like global warming.

Case in point is the Greens Party in our upcoming Australian election too. Some great policies but puts so much emphasis on saying sorry to the Aborigines. Who cares!? There are more important issues than a bunch of conquered people.

I also used to be very anti-religion but I've now a tolerance for all religions and certainly recognize the role they've played in nurturing society and cultures throughout history. Like I said - a more mature approach of being able to view something with the good and the bad.

Sam L
Oct 24th, 2007, 05:39 AM
African-Americans in the USA are more often the victims of crime than any other racial group. They are also the most liberal.

In other words, the liberal who get mugged the most are the most liberal.

Are African-Americans really that liberal though? This is a genuine question because I know that a lot of African-Americans are Christian and go to church and I'm sure quite a few of them would be anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion. No?

Also, remember there are social liberals and economic liberals too. So I think this is that simple.

starin
Oct 24th, 2007, 06:01 AM
I don't think you are supposed to take the quote so literally. Liberals are stereotyped as living the world of ideals and what not while conservative are supposedly grounded in the real world. A liberal is only liberal so long as he doesn't have to face his ideals in the real world.

and the opposite quote is true as well. When faced with death we often turn to our ideals cuz the reality of death is something we don't really want to face.

not really true overall but it does have some legitimacy.

venus_rulez
Oct 24th, 2007, 10:03 AM
I can only speak for myself. I can definitely say that about 7 years ago I was more "left wing liberal" than I am now. I was very anti-war, very pro-choice and vehemently wanted gay marriage. Basically a rebel without a cause.

But now my opinions on those issues have swung a bit more to the right. By all means there are still issues very important to me like ecological conservation and global warming. I'm no tree hugger but I have enough intelligence to know that this is something we shouldn't be myopic about. We're talking about long-term survival of the species here.

I think the difference is that before I was a bleeding heart (i.e. blind) liberal but now I'm more a mature liberal who's willing to look at both sides of the coin. I'm not by any means a conservative though.

That's why I can't stand bleeding heart liberals because they just subscribe to a set of values that everyone in that group must subscribe to. The usual: gay marriage is a must, abortion anytime anywhere, all wars are bad, Israel is the devil, the US is guilty of imperialism BS. The problem is that these people hijack important issues like global warming.

Case in point is the Greens Party in our upcoming Australian election too. Some great policies but puts so much emphasis on saying sorry to the Aborigines. Who cares!? There are more important issues than a bunch of conquered people.

I also used to be very anti-religion but I've now a tolerance for all religions and certainly recognize the role they've played in nurturing society and cultures throughout history. Like I said - a more mature approach of being able to view something with the good and the bad.



I'm not attacking you at all, but I think it's interesting that you now "can't stand" bleeding heart liberals. I would think considering you used to be one, that you'd understand (whether you disagreed or not) where they were coming from.

And Blacks tend to be the most liberal? Where and who are these black people. I think your statement would only be correct for Black people who also are apart of another minority class (meaning they're gay or a woman)

meyerpl
Oct 24th, 2007, 12:11 PM
But now my opinions on those issues have swung a bit more to the right. By all means there are still issues very important to me like ecological conservation and global warming. I'm no tree hugger but I have enough intelligence to know that this is something we shouldn't be myopic about. We're talking about long-term survival of the species here.

I think the difference is that before I was a bleeding heart (i.e. blind) liberal but now I'm more a mature liberal who's willing to look at both sides of the coin. I'm not by any means a conservative though.

That's why I can't stand bleeding heart liberals because they just subscribe to a set of values that everyone in that group must subscribe to. The usual: gay marriage is a must, abortion anytime anywhere, all wars are bad, Israel is the devil, the US is guilty of imperialism BS. The problem is that these people hijack important issues like global warming.

You describe yourself as having views more complex than the labels typically used to define people yet you use stereotypes identified with the liberal label to define others. Guess what? You aren't unique. Most people have viewpoints at least as complex as yours.

By your definition of a liberal, we don't have any liberal candidates running for president. I think in the U.S. the Democratic party currently has more diversity of views than the Republican party. You don't hear too many democrats beating up on each other for not being "liberal enough". "Not conservitive enough" and "real conservitive" seem to be the themes of the current Republican presidential campaign.

miffedmax
Oct 24th, 2007, 01:14 PM
I think the U.S. has lost sight, at least in terms of control of its allegedly conservative party. To me, conservatism is characterized by a support for the status quo, a "go-slow" policy toward change, a realpolitik-based foreign policy and fiscal responsibility.

Since the '80s, the Republicans and most alleged "conservatives" are either reactionaries wanting to do every change since 1945, or neocons, who are so intent on creating their own reality that they will destroy the very bedrock of our country in their quest for illusory power, or whores to big business with no respect for ethics or fairness.

That's why I quit being a Republican. (Yes, even though Texas is an "Open" state where you don't have to register, I sent the Republican Party Chairman an official "resignation" letter in protest of the party's idealogy during the late '80s and '90s, and they've gotten worse since then).

Philbo
Oct 24th, 2007, 01:45 PM
Case in point is the Greens Party in our upcoming Australian election too. Some great policies but puts so much emphasis on saying sorry to the Aborigines. Who cares!? There are more important issues than a bunch of conquered people.




Wow Sam, your views get more repugnant each time I log in.

I agree that saying Sorry wont achieve much in real terms, but it is a symbolic gesture to show the regret that a lot of australians feel about our shameful treatment of the aboriginies.. Ever heard the term compassion?

You've written me off before as 'bleeding heart liberal', but I also have views that dont fit perfectly into the left wing ideology - you are not special in that regard.

You dismiss the opinion of anyone who is not PRO-Israel as just another 'bleeding heart liberal ' but Ive come to my opinion of Israel slowly over a number of years of following what happens in that region - 10 years ago i just thought of the Israeli's as poor victims of crazy terrorists (as you do now), but once I was old enough to really apply my own analysis to the issue, its clear that the imbalance of support for Israel in the USA hurts american interests. You cannot pour fuel on a fire (of hatred) for dozens of years and not expect some retalliation (9/11) - and thats straight from Ron Paul.

Qrystyna
Oct 24th, 2007, 02:02 PM
Conservatism is an outdated and completely fruitless political ideaology.

BUBI
Oct 24th, 2007, 02:57 PM
I can only speak for myself. I can definitely say that about 7 years ago I was more "left wing liberal" than I am now. I was very anti-war, very pro-choice and vehemently wanted gay marriage. Basically a rebel without a cause.

But now my opinions on those issues have swung a bit more to the right. By all means there are still issues very important to me like ecological conservation and global warming. I'm no tree hugger but I have enough intelligence to know that this is something we shouldn't be myopic about. We're talking about long-term survival of the species here.

I think the difference is that before I was a bleeding heart (i.e. blind) liberal but now I'm more a mature liberal who's willing to look at both sides of the coin. I'm not by any means a conservative though.

That's why I can't stand bleeding heart liberals because they just subscribe to a set of values that everyone in that group must subscribe to. The usual: gay marriage is a must, abortion anytime anywhere, all wars are bad, Israel is the devil, the US is guilty of imperialism BS. The problem is that these people hijack important issues like global warming.

Case in point is the Greens Party in our upcoming Australian election too. Some great policies but puts so much emphasis on saying sorry to the Aborigines. Who cares!? There are more important issues than a bunch of conquered people.

I also used to be very anti-religion but I've now a tolerance for all religions and certainly recognize the role they've played in nurturing society and cultures throughout history. Like I said - a more mature approach of being able to view something with the good and the bad.

In short: You were a liberal, now you are a neo-conservative.

Philbo
Oct 24th, 2007, 03:00 PM
In short: You were a liberal, now you are a neo-conservative.

LOL - Brilliant post...:lol: :lol: :lol:

Volcana
Oct 24th, 2007, 03:25 PM
Are African-Americans really that liberal though? This is a genuine question because I know that a lot of African-Americans are Christian and go to church and I'm sure quite a few of them would be anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion. No?

Also, remember there are social liberals and economic liberals too. So I think this is that simple.

I am being over-simplistic as well, but to do justice to this topic would take a 500 page graduate thesis. This really isn't the forum for that. As for whether or not African-Americans are really that liberal, they vote that liberal. 90% Democratic Party voters, and their simply aren't any liberal Repubicans left. Both the Democratic and Republican parties used to have substantial numbers of liberals and conservatives. That's no longer the case.

Also, as I pointed out in the opening post, 'liberal' and 'conservative' largely devolves to a person's position on whether or not the Federal government should have been involved in countering white racism. Yes, there are other issues, but when it comes to the ballot box, that's the one that largely tells the tale. I personally think the Federal government should have to tax, currently, for every penny they spend. Up til Bush II, that was a Republican position, but I've never voted Republican. Their tolerance for white privilege in the USA is simply an overriding issue.

Volcana
Oct 24th, 2007, 03:34 PM
Case in point is the Greens Party in our upcoming Australian election too. Some great policies but puts so much emphasis on saying sorry to the Aborigines.
Apologies cost little. Why does it even bother you?
Who cares!? There are more important issues than a bunch of conquered people.Isn't that the same position as 'who cares about victims of rape?' There ARE more important issues. But perhaps not to the rape victim. Which is why we spend tax dollars giving counseling to rape victims.

An apology is somewhat less expensive. It DOES begin to give the 'conquest' the status of a crime however, which is, no doubt, the reason for some of the opposition.

lakeway11
Oct 24th, 2007, 04:05 PM
here is a definition:

A true conservative is one who supports Ron Paul...end of story

samsung101
Oct 24th, 2007, 04:13 PM
In the USA, liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, tend to be far more alike than
they care to admit. Most Americans are more middle of the road, moderate. In comparison to European
and Latin American 'liberal'/'conservative' labels. Not a lot of marxists in the USA.


What's that Churchill statement - if you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart,
if you're not a conservative by 40, you have no brain.

It's just called 'life'....you get a home, buy a car, pay your loans, you work, get married,
get divorced, etc., you start to look at many things differently. You start to realize hey,I
pay those taxes. Get a property tax bill, and see all the different taxes on there, and you
get hit with reality. You look around and see lots of people here illegally, taking jobs
you could do, or your teen kids could do, using tax dollars in hospitals and schools, etc.
People change.


But, black Americans in poll after poll are actually pretty moderate to conservative in their social
views on things. But, the Democratic Party has a monopoly on their vote. Which is not really a smart
thing to do- the Democrats don't have to do much to keep that vote, so things don't have to change.

Which is why both parties are courting the Hispanic vote so much, they need it.
Why both parties want desperately to make changes to immigration laws to make it
easier for illegals to be here....and make nice with what they think is what
hispanics want. Again, the black vote will be taken for granted. It's a lock for
one party.

Sam L
Oct 24th, 2007, 04:31 PM
Apologies cost little. Why does it even bother you?
Isn't that the same position as 'who cares about victims of rape?' There ARE more important issues. But perhaps not to the rape victim. Which is why we spend tax dollars giving counseling to rape victims.

An apology is somewhat less expensive. It DOES begin to give the 'conquest' the status of a crime however, which is, no doubt, the reason for some of the opposition.

Yes, the damn British, French, Americans and Russians for conquering Germany and dividing it into 4 sections. Damn criminals! :rolleyes: Are we going to stop with the ridiculous and offensive comparisons like rape?

I'd rather my government taking action on issues like terrorism, health and education than apologizing for our ancestors that are no longer alive and to victims that are no longer alive. Aborigines today are benefiting from that "conquest" as much as anyone else.

Volcana
Oct 24th, 2007, 04:32 PM
It's just called 'life'....you get a home, buy a car, pay your loans, you work, get married, get divorced, etc., you start to look at many things differently. You start to realize hey, I pay those taxes. Get a property tax bill, and see all the different taxes on there, and you get hit with reality.Part of 'reality' is seeing what those taxes pay for. The road you're driving on, the wires that carrt your electricity (in some parts of the country), being able to drink the water without worrying about being poisoned, ditto the food, the fire department, etc, etc, etc.

And yes, I own a house and pay property taxes. Rather high ones, since my town has very little industry. But that's the price I chose to pay to live in a resevoir district next to a state park. It's beautiful here, but it's pricey.

You look around and see lots of people here illegally, taking jobs you could do, or your teen kids could do, using tax dollars in hospitals and schools, etc.Those aren't jobs me or my kid would be doing (she's 2), but your point is actually well taken. If all the jobs illegal immigrants do were available to legals, there would be a LOT less unemployment.

However, the cost in terms of schools and hospitals is trivial. The children of illegals make up a miniscule portion of the public school population, and the number of uninsured legals using the hospitals dwarfs the number of undocumented workers. First off, undocumented workers avoid using things like hospitals unless they absolutely have to, and second, if they're that sick, I WANT them to use the hospital.
But, black Americans in poll after poll are actually pretty moderate to conservative in their social views on things. But, the Democratic Party has a monopoly on their vote. Which is not really a smart thing to do- the Democrats don't have to do much to keep that vote, so things don't have to change.As long as the Republican party remains the party that's okay with white supremacy, Blacks are going to vote Democratic. And yes, that DOES make it too easy for the Democratic party.

If the Republicans really wanted to break the Democratic lock on the Black vote, without having to repudiate it's white supremacist bloc, the place to start is Black unemployment. Keep hammering away at the idea that undocumented workers are doing jobs unemployed Blacks could do, and you'd make some progress. Note however, that a significant portion of those jobs are in agriculture, and a disproportionate number of Blacks live in urban areas. It's not a panacea.

Sam L
Oct 24th, 2007, 04:38 PM
I'm not attacking you at all, but I think it's interesting that you now "can't stand" bleeding heart liberals. I would think considering you used to be one, that you'd understand (whether you disagreed or not) where they were coming from.

Well, like I said in the Ron Paul thread, I hope that it's just the rebel phase that young people are going through. But if someone's 40 and still a bleeding heart liberal then Churchill is spot on.

You describe yourself as having views more complex than the labels typically used to define people yet you use stereotypes identified with the liberal label to define others. Guess what? You aren't unique. Most people have viewpoints at least as complex as yours.

By your definition of a liberal, we don't have any liberal candidates running for president. I think in the U.S. the Democratic party currently has more diversity of views than the Republican party. You don't hear too many democrats beating up on each other for not being "liberal enough". "Not conservitive enough" and "real conservitive" seem to be the themes of the current Republican presidential campaign.

Actually I am unique but not just for my views I've expressed on this board. Anyway, I digress.

My idea of what's to be "liberal" has changed like I said. If you're saying that there aren't any bleeding heart liberal candidates, you're probably right. To tell you the truth, I haven't exactly studied all the candidates. Like I said I am liberal. And I support Hillary Clinton for the US presidency.

It's just that there's sane liberal and insane liberal. Just like there are sane conservatives and insane conservatives.

Sam L
Oct 24th, 2007, 04:40 PM
Jobs? I'd be more worried about American jobs that are being taken up by Chinese in China. Not to mention the ever growing trade deficit with that country.

Volcana
Oct 24th, 2007, 04:47 PM
Yes, the damn British, French, Americans and Russians for conquering Germany and dividing it into 4 sections. Damn criminals! :rolleyes: Are we going to stop with the ridiculous and offensive comparisons like rape?No.

The comparision is neither ridiculous nor offensive.

First of all, your counter-example is poorly chosen. Germany was the aggressor in the war that resulted in the breakup of the country.
Secondly, if you hadn't come up with your 'who cares about a bunch of conquered people?' line, you wouldn't have opened yourself up to that line of attack.
I'd rather my government taking action on issues like terrorism, health and education than apologizing for our ancestors that are no longer alive and to victims that are no longer alive. That's a false dichotomy. Apologies, as I said, cost little. They don't prevent the government from dealing with terrorism or health or education. You can argue there's no benefit to an apology, but it isn't preventing other work from being done. Even politicians multi-task.
Aborigines today are benefiting from that "conquest" as much as anyone else.They might disagree. Are there differences in wealth, or health, or lifespan for Aboriginals in Australia vs those of European descent? If so, then the arguement that Aborginals are 'benefitting' from that conquest 'as much as anybody' is false on it's face.

Volcana
Oct 24th, 2007, 04:52 PM
Like I said I am liberal. And I support Hillary Clinton for the US presidency.Hillary isn't a liberal. Why do you support her, as opposed to one of the more liberal candidates like Edwards or Dodd? (I'll leave Kucinich out of this.)

Sam L
Oct 24th, 2007, 04:56 PM
Hillary isn't a liberal. Why do you support her, as opposed to one of the more liberal candidates like Edwards or Dodd? (I'll leave Kucinich out of this.)

I'll come back to the other post later as I have to sleep now. But I don't mind Edwards. I just don't think he has a good chance to get elected (nomination or further). If Hillary isn't liberal, what is she?

égalité
Oct 24th, 2007, 05:00 PM
I can only speak for myself. I can definitely say that about 7 years ago I was more "left wing liberal" than I am now. I was very anti-war, very pro-choice and vehemently wanted gay marriage. Basically a rebel without a cause.

But now my opinions on those issues have swung a bit more to the right. By all means there are still issues very important to me like ecological conservation and global warming. I'm no tree hugger but I have enough intelligence to know that this is something we shouldn't be myopic about. We're talking about long-term survival of the species here.

I think the difference is that before I was a bleeding heart (i.e. blind) liberal but now I'm more a mature liberal who's willing to look at both sides of the coin. I'm not by any means a conservative though.

That's why I can't stand bleeding heart liberals because they just subscribe to a set of values that everyone in that group must subscribe to. The usual: gay marriage is a must, abortion anytime anywhere, all wars are bad, Israel is the devil, the US is guilty of imperialism BS. The problem is that these people hijack important issues like global warming.

Case in point is the Greens Party in our upcoming Australian election too. Some great policies but puts so much emphasis on saying sorry to the Aborigines. Who cares!? There are more important issues than a bunch of conquered people.

I also used to be very anti-religion but I've now a tolerance for all religions and certainly recognize the role they've played in nurturing society and cultures throughout history. Like I said - a more mature approach of being able to view something with the good and the bad.

That's true, but conservatives do the same thing. I have a problem with everyone who blindly subscribes to an entire set of values because they've somehow decided that they belong in that group. I don't call myself a liberal or a conservative because I just have beliefs: I think abortion is wrong but a pregnant woman might not and that's fine, I think any marriage between two consenting legal adults should be legal, I think free trade is a sham and protectionist policies would help the world economy immensely, I think the death penalty is wrong because killing people is illegal, I think a more controlled market is vital for helping poor citizens survive, I think corporations need regulation and individuals don't because corporations are not living, breathing entities that have free will and the ability to be happy. I just have beliefs, and a lot of them fall into the "liberal" category. There are some issues that I'm ambivalent about, and I used to think, "OK, I'm a liberal. Which way should I go on these issues?" But I don't think like that anymore. So yeah, I guess I used to be a liberal, too. We have a lot in common ;)

Still, no way in hell I'd never vote for a Republican. :tape:

Volcana
Oct 24th, 2007, 05:13 PM
I'll come back to the other post later as I have to sleep now. But I don't mind Edwards. I just don't think he has a good chance to get elected (nomination or further). If Hillary isn't liberal, what is she?Hillary is far and away the least liberal of the Democratic candidates. She's a hawk on the Iraq War, more 'right to work' than pro-union by a long shot, is virtually silent of the specifics of dealing with racial inequities, won't give ahteists th time of day; in fact, the only issue where you'd really call her a liberal at all is she's pro-choice.

If she were a man, nobody would call her a liberal.

*JR*
Oct 24th, 2007, 05:28 PM
Hillary is far and away the least liberal of the Democratic candidates. She's a hawk on the Iraq War, more 'right to work' than pro-union by a long shot, is virtually silent of the specifics of dealing with racial inequities, won't give atheists the time of day; in fact, the only issue where you'd really call her a liberal at all is she's pro-choice.

If she were a man, nobody would call her a liberal.
Bill Clinton's policies were easily as conservative (or more, like pro-free trade without the conditions Hillary and the others running this year favor). Yet Toni Morrison and other black opinion leaders metaphorically called him "America's first black President". :scratch:

miffedmax
Oct 24th, 2007, 07:06 PM
I disagree with Volcana a little regarding the Republicans. From the Civil War until the New Deal, most blacks were Republicans. Even after many black voters defected, the Republicans, often times timidly but in general, supported the nascent Civil Rights movement in the late '50s and '60s. The first black Senator (Brookes of Mass.) to be elected since Reconstruction was a Republican.

In the late '70s, though, the Republicans saw an opportunity to split off conservative Southern voters who were disillusioned with a Democratic Party that had come to dominated by its left wing and turned off by the Democrats being the ones who passed the most important civil rights legislation of the '60s. The "Southern Strategy" was opposed by liberal (and a liberal Republican was never the same thing as a conservative Demorcrat--liberal meant liberal in comparison to Goldwater Republicans, while a conservative Democrat was probably to the right of Goldwater Republicans on social issues) Republicans like Brookes, Wiecker, Percy and a handfull of other Republicans who either retired or were targeted by the right wing of the Party.

Much of the Republican code-speak for turning back the clock to the pre-civil rights era dates from this time period. Despite being a white southernor myself, the Republicans "Southern Strategy" is a major reason why I left the party (where I'd actually been quite active).

The delicious irony, of course, is that the whole thing is starting to backfire on them. The black vote has become all but a lock for the Dems, many women in the South find their policies unacceptable and a rapidly growing Hispanic population views them with suspicion (not least because they've seen how other minorities are treated).

Remember, even Barry Goldwater himself was against pandering to racism to attract new voters and had little use for the Republican ideology of the '90s.

Volcana
Oct 24th, 2007, 07:11 PM
Bill Clinton's policies were easily as conservative (or more, like pro-free trade without the conditions Hillary and the others running this year favor). Yet Toni Morrison and other black opinion leaders metaphorically called him "America's first black President". :scratch:That wasn't because of his politics. That was because of his personality. Most white people I've ever met are vague to quite uncomfortable surrounded by Blacks. Not Clinton. He's genuinely at home surrounded by Blacks. Possibly his childhood, though there are a lot of poor whites in America, and they don't all have that quality.

Hillary doesn't have that quailty, BTW.

Volcana
Oct 24th, 2007, 07:14 PM
I disagree with Volcana a little regarding the Republicans.I find myself agreeing with pretty much everything you said, so where I we disagreeing? I must be wrong about something I wrote.

Donny
Oct 24th, 2007, 09:49 PM
That wasn't because of his politics. That was because of his personality. Most white people I've ever met are vague to quite uncomfortable surrounded by Blacks. Not Clinton. He's genuinely at home surrounded by Blacks. Possibly his childhood, though there are a lot of poor whites in America, and they don't all have that quality.

Hillary doesn't have that quailty, BTW.

A lot of the blacks who think that way, I might add, have NEVER had a white person of any importance act friendly towards them. For many in the south, every white person in power has been downright antagonistic. I think it's like the Good Cop Bad Cop scenario. Imagine the blacks in North Carolina who had Thurmond as a Senator. They probably fainted when they first saw Clinton being chummy with minorities. That's my take on it, at least.

Donny
Oct 24th, 2007, 09:59 PM
An old political saying in the USA. Not often challenged, to be honest. But recently, I've been giving it some thought, because a) there's a presidential election coming up, and b) it fails in the face of fact.

African-Americans in the USA are more often the victims of crime than any other racial group. They are also the most liberal.

In other words, the liberal who get mugged the most are the most liberal.

So .. why?

Some of it, of course, is that 'conservative' and 'liberal', in post WWII usage, are code words for whether or not you support using the Federal government to combat white racism. (I commend to anyone who wants to understand the development of race relations in the USA in the last 50 years "Eyes on the Prize", and "Eyes on the Prize II".)

Given that reality, you simply aren't going to see many conservative Blacks in the last fifty years. And given the political re-alignment that made the Republicans the party that opposed equal rights for Blacks, and the Democrats the party that supported equal rights for Blacks, all the crime in the world isn't going to produce many Black Republicans. This is especially ironic given that it was the Republicans that ended slavery, and it was Repubican support that allowed the limited civil rights legislation of the fifties and sixties to pass. But I digress ....

'A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged'

'A liberal is a conservative with a catastrphic illness'

How do such simplistic political statements come into common usage?

Food for thought, eh?

NOTE: [10-24-07]: When I say Black people are 'liberal', I'm focusing on how Blacks vote, relative to the rest of the population.


When you're part of a majority, you have two options to explain the ills of a section of society.

Blame the entire society, which you, as a majority member, and as a parent/child/friend of majority members, take part of the blame for, or you blame the minority, and claim that there is something innately wrong about the minority group.

Racism makes life easier for the majority. it's not THEIR fault, it's ours.

Sam L
Oct 25th, 2007, 02:40 AM
Hillary is far and away the least liberal of the Democratic candidates. She's a hawk on the Iraq War, more 'right to work' than pro-union by a long shot, is virtually silent of the specifics of dealing with racial inequities, won't give ahteists th time of day; in fact, the only issue where you'd really call her a liberal at all is she's pro-choice.

If she were a man, nobody would call her a liberal.

Not according to articles and opinions such as these: Hillary Clinton 'would move US to Left'
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/25/wus125.xml)
I'm not saying you're wrong but there are so many people that are calling her 'socialist' and 'liberal'. I think everyone's confused about those terms and about Hillary. And so, I think it's a good time to clear it up.

Volcana
Oct 25th, 2007, 03:31 AM
Not according to articles and opinions such as these: Hillary Clinton 'would move US to Left' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/25/wus125.xml)
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/25/wus125.xml)
I'm not saying you're wrong but there are so many people that are calling her 'socialist' and 'liberal'. I think everyone's confused about those terms and about Hillary. And so, I think it's a good time to clear it up.
That article is quoting Guiliani, who tried to run against Hillary for Senate and got his ass kicked so bad he didn't even get to the Republican nomination. Simply put, he's lying, or rather, playing to his audience. But that sort of dishonesty is baseline Guiliani.

After he lost his first mayoral run, he backed a bid for one of the boroughs of New York to secede from the city. Backing that bid gor 50,000 extra voters from that borough to vote in the next mayoral election, almost all for Guiliani. This provided his margin of victory. And upon become mayor, he told them to fuck off, he no longer backed their bid to secede fron the city.

I lived in New York City while that clown was mayor. He is bad, bad news. Even the New York City firefighters oppose him, and considering he's running on his 9/11 rep, that says something.

miffedmax
Oct 25th, 2007, 03:51 AM
I find myself agreeing with pretty much everything you said, so where I we disagreeing? I must be wrong about something I wrote.

I think I misread your post as implying the Republicans had always been as they are now, and you didn't.

Sam L
Oct 25th, 2007, 06:26 AM
That article is quoting Guiliani, who tried to run against Hillary for Senate and got his ass kicked so bad he didn't even get to the Republican nomination. Simply put, he's lying, or rather, playing to his audience. But that sort of dishonesty is baseline Guiliani.

After he lost his first mayoral run, he backed a bid for one of the boroughs of New York to secede from the city. Backing that bid gor 50,000 extra voters from that borough to vote in the next mayoral election, almost all for Guiliani. This provided his margin of victory. And upon become mayor, he told them to fuck off, he no longer backed their bid to secede fron the city.

I lived in New York City while that clown was mayor. He is bad, bad news. Even the New York City firefighters oppose him, and considering he's running on his 9/11 rep, that says something.

Okay, we're not talking about Giuliani here. We're talking about Hillary. Obviously, he's not the only person to view Hillary that way. Agreed? Now, can we talk about that? :rolleyes:

Volcana
Oct 25th, 2007, 01:34 PM
Okay, we're not talking about Giuliani here. We're talking about Hillary. Obviously, he's not the only person to view Hillary that way. Agreed? Now, can we talk about that?
He's the only person arguing the USA would wind up left of France!
View it this way. If you lined up the candidates by their positions on issues Hillary is quite squarely in the middle. (Which, by the traditional measures of American politics (pre-Reagan) actually puts her pretty far to the RIGHT.) The thing is, it's actually only a very few issues that really define 'conservative' and 'liberal' in the USA.

THE defining issue of 'conservative' vs 'liberal' is whether or not the government should be used as a tool to end white privilege in the USA. That's the one that caused the political re-alignment of the Republican and Democratic parties into, essentially, the Conservative and Liberal parties. That was actually one of my points in the original post.

Secondly, abortion. Actually, that more basic, though not more causal. Who controls a woman's body? The woman, or the man who's child she carries?

Thirdly, the place of religion in government.

All the rest of the 'conservative' vs 'liberal' are false fronts, or issues where Hillary is more in the conservative camp than the liberal one.

Wars of Aggression - Hillary tries hard too obscure the fact that she pro the War against Iraq, but she's one of the people talking about basing 50,000 troops there permanently! Simply put, she favors using the American military to further the ends of multi-national corporations nominally based in the USA. The traditional conservative view, of course, is that the USA only uses the military to defend itself. That view has since been redined as belonging to 'Libertarians'. Hillary's a warhawk, pure and simple.

Fiscal discipline? Hillary certainly favors that, and her record as Senator from New York certainly backs that up. But of course, she's running as if she were party of her husband's presindency, and takes credit for Bill balancing the Federal budget. Conservatives have since proven, from 2001-2006, that they can't be trusted with the national credit card, while liberals haven't been in control of congress, or the presidency, since the early 1970's. They haven't been ABLE to spend. You might put it this way. Conservatives raise your children's taxes. Liberals raise YOUR taxes. If you don't have kids, that's an easy choice to make. I have a child.

Cleaning up the environment? That's an issue, but more a big business issue than a conservative one. Conservative politicians talk about it because big business gives them money. Rank and file conservatives could care less.

Health care? 'Hillarycare', as it's now called, wasn't 'socialized medicine'. It was guaranteed profit for insurance companies. People need to look at the details of that proposal. But you don't find many 'conservatives' calling for an end to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Too many of their constituents benefit from those programs.

So if you look at the issues, Hillary's positions is 'liberal' on only two of them. Abortion and race. But of course, those are the two live wire issues of American politics. Hillary's corporatist. The one thing you can be sure of is no positions willbe coming out of a Clinton II administration that put the rights of individuals ahead of the rights of business, except in cases of outright discrimination. The question the Democrats need to ask themselves is whether breaking the ultimate glass ceiling is worth the possible permanent empowerment of the corporations, to the detriment of the citizenry.

NOTE: Hillary helped run Nixon out of office. Not an issue for rank and file conservatives, but for the power elite, she'll NEVER be forgiven for that.

Sam L
Oct 25th, 2007, 01:51 PM
All the rest of the 'conservative' vs 'liberal' are false fronts, or issues where Hillary is more in the conservative camp than the liberal one.

Wars of Aggression - Hillary tries hard too obscure the fact that she pro the War against Iraq, but she's one of the people talking about basing 50,000 troops there permanently! Simply put, she favors using the American military to further the ends of multi-national corporations nominally based in the USA. The traditional conservative view, of course, is that the USA only uses the military to defend itself. That view has since been redined as belonging to 'Libertarians'. Hillary's a warhawk, pure and simple.

Hillary said she'll get the US troops out of Iraq.

Fiscal discipline? Hillary certainly favors that, and her record as Senator from New York certainly backs that up. But of course, she's running as if she were party of her husband's presindency, and takes credit for Bill balancing the Federal budget. Conservatives have since proven, from 2001-2006, that they can't be trusted with the national credit card, while liberals haven't been in control of congress, or the presidency, since the early 1970's. They haven't been ABLE to spend. You might put it this way. Conservatives raise your children's taxes. Liberals raise YOUR taxes. If you don't have kids, that's an easy choice to make. I have a child.

The big draw in her campaign is that she will bring the power back to the Middle classes. I don't think she's a corporatist as you said.

Cleaning up the environment? That's an issue, but more a big business issue than a conservative one. Conservative politicians talk about it because big business gives them money. Rank and file conservatives could care less.

I think the most important thing here is that it's been talked about and something will get done. Hillary has promised that.

So if you look at the issues, Hillary's positions is 'liberal' on only two of them. Abortion and race.

I disagree. But in any case, you're not going to find a better candidate. So who do you think should get the Democratic nomination then?

hingis-seles
Oct 25th, 2007, 04:36 PM
I also used to be very anti-religion but I've now a tolerance for all religions and certainly recognize the role they've played in nurturing society and cultures throughout history. Like I said - a more mature approach of being able to view something with the good and the bad.

You're by far one of the most intolerant posters I have come across with regards to religion. You jump at any opportunity to attack Islam and Muslims, whether the attack is warranted or not.

Volcana
Oct 25th, 2007, 06:16 PM
Hillary said she'll get the US troops out of Iraq.The two question are a) ALL of them? As Richardson has promised. and b) When? Richardson says it can be done in six months. Hillary won't even promise to do it by 20013.
The big draw in her campaign is that she will bring the power back to the Middle classes. I don't think she's a corporatist as you said.We disagree
I think the most important thing here is that it's been talked about and something will get done. Hillary has promised that.I think what the 'something' is, is important. Trading pollution credits is a bullshit answer to the problem.
So who do you think should get the Democratic nomination then?Haven't made up my mind. I may even decide it's Hillary. Kucinich most closelyreflects my own positions, but he's not getting the nomination.

Certainly there are none of the Republican candidates I'd vote for over one of the Democrats, but the Democrats could nominate someone I disliked enough that I might vote third party. I've voted in every presidential election since I was old enough to vote, and only once have I voted for a Democrat or a Republican. That was 2004. I think the two party system, as practiced in the USA, is hopelessly corrupt. But the Republicans are even more corrupt than the Democrats, which is awfully hard to do. Actually, I don't think Obama is corrupted yet, but by the time he gets done making enough compromises to get the nomination, he will be. And in his case, since he'll surely be assassinated in office, who his VP is will be VERY important.

BUBI
Oct 25th, 2007, 06:28 PM
Hillary said she'll get the US troops out of Iraq.


She has never said that.

Mr_Molik
Oct 26th, 2007, 12:40 AM
Yes, the damn British, French, Americans and Russians for conquering Germany and dividing it into 4 sections. Damn criminals! :rolleyes: Are we going to stop with the ridiculous and offensive comparisons like rape?

I'd rather my government taking action on issues like terrorism, health and education than apologizing for our ancestors that are no longer alive and to victims that are no longer alive. Aborigines today are benefiting from that "conquest" as much as anyone else.
Yes, I'm sure that all the Aborigines living in 3rd world conditions in the outback would agree with you there. Their life expectancy is 20 years less than that of other Australians. Their median income is lower and 20% of them are unemployed. An apology is just the beginning of what needs to be done to repair the damage done to them.

Volcana
Oct 26th, 2007, 01:44 AM
Sam L - You undercut your own arguements as much or more than anyone else on this board. You could have made a 'realpolitik' arguement about Australian aboriginals on the same facts, rather than being flippant, and would up with a pretty defensible case. Not ironclad, but at least defensible. Instead, you make an arguement that's relatively easy to defeat. Where's the gain in that?

Fingon
Oct 26th, 2007, 03:05 AM
I can't really say much about US politics, I am not interested in what a particular candidate has to say since I won't vote in that election.

Probably, if I was a US citizen I would vote Giuliani, I can be wrong, as I said I am not that familiar with every day American politics, that's why I mostly stayed out of this thread.

However, my perception of American presidents over the years is that they are not really that different. The American economy stays its course regardless of what politicians do. Of course, government spending has a huge impact, but the spending has always been very high, they might cut here and add there but the US economy is still largely driven by consumer and private corporations. If Hillary Clinton wins, IMO it will really be Bill Clinton calling the shots, but in any case, it won't be a huge difference with a republican president. both will differentiate from Bush but not in the bases, they will stay in Iraq, they will be tough on immigration. Hillary might try to get her health reform and it will be rejected (sorry, I am quite cynic concerning politicians).

Anyway, the labels conservative and liberal always bothered me, I know that conservative implies right and liberal a little bit to the left, but why? A conservative is someone that wants to keep the statuquo, the opposite of conservative is not liberal, but revolutionary, or you might say that a conservative is not open to new ideas and a liberal is.

In any case, I am a libertian, I believe in a small roll for the state, free enterprise, low taxes, tough crime laws and tough measures against terrorism, but I am also an atheist, I believe religion has no place in goverments, not at all, I believe everyone should receive at least basic education, and that everyone should have access to health care (not the Canadian model, not the American model, something in between). I am against affirmative action but I am against discrimination, I favour death penalty for the most henious crimes but I recognize justice is not always blind. I believe that sex is not dangerous and that people kill people, not weapons.

Anyway, it looks like I am spitting a bunch of unrelated non-sense, but my point is that despite the labels, how can someone be conservative or liberal? neither nearly approaches to what I think is right, not even combining the best of both camps.

Fingon
Oct 26th, 2007, 03:09 AM
Sam L - You undercut your own arguements as much or more than anyone else on this board. You could have made a 'realpolitik' arguement about Australian aboriginals on the same facts, rather than being flippant, and would up with a pretty defensible case. Not ironclad, but at least defensible. Instead, you make an arguement that's relatively easy to defeat. Where's the gain in that?

I actually agree, I think that despite what you think, making remarks that are not necessarily related to the main point that make people uncomfortable (and saying will make people feel uncomfortable) is a very bad way to gain an audience, they are biased to be against you.

Reminds me of an ad I saw regarding HIV, it was very aggressive, like blaming everyone for the treatment given to people who were HIV positive, the message was right but the way of saying it not, you don't get support, no matter how right you are by attacking and antagonizing the people whose support you hope to get.

politics 101.

Sam L
Oct 26th, 2007, 03:22 AM
Sam L - You undercut your own arguements as much or more than anyone else on this board. You could have made a 'realpolitik' arguement about Australian aboriginals on the same facts, rather than being flippant, and would up with a pretty defensible case. Not ironclad, but at least defensible. Instead, you make an arguement that's relatively easy to defeat. Where's the gain in that?

That's what you believe. But it really doesn't matter anyway because I have the confidence that it won't be happening. If you understood my argument you'll find that this was a criticism on the Greens a political party that I have. To tell you the truth, I don't really care about this at all. There are bigger issues I'm worried about.

I actually agree, I think that despite what you think, making remarks that are not necessarily related to the main point that make people uncomfortable (and saying will make people feel uncomfortable) is a very bad way to gain an audience, they are biased to be against you.

Reminds me of an ad I saw regarding HIV, it was very aggressive, like blaming everyone for the treatment given to people who were HIV positive, the message was right but the way of saying it not, you don't get support, no matter how right you are by attacking and antagonizing the people whose support you hope to get.

politics 101.

Oh I'm sorry, Fingon. I didn't know I was supposed to be selling my point of view in this thread. Look, none of the two major Australian political parties are going to be apologizing soon. This isn't even talked about in Australian politics. The only reason I brought up the Greens is that this is one of the very left of the centre (joke) positions that they have that no one's buying. For all we know, we could be looking at another 3 years of John Howard and he's said never ever.

Sam L
Oct 26th, 2007, 03:30 AM
Yes, I'm sure that all the Aborigines living in 3rd world conditions in the outback would agree with you there. Their life expectancy is 20 years less than that of other Australians. Their median income is lower and 20% of them are unemployed. An apology is just the beginning of what needs to be done to repair the damage done to them.

And what about those living well in the cities studying at Universities, getting subsidies better than anyone else? What about those who are holding down professional jobs? What about those who are benefiting by just being 1/16 or 1/8 of Aboriginal blood?

Simple-minded views. They have the opportunity to work and succeed like anyone else. There are plenty of white and migrant families struggling too. No one cries a river about them. :rolleyes:

Donny
Oct 26th, 2007, 03:35 AM
And what about those living well in the cities studying at Universities, getting subsidies better than anyone else? What about those who are holding down professional jobs? What about those who are benefiting by just being 1/16 or 1/8 of Aboriginal blood?

Simple-minded views. They have the opportunity to work and succeed like anyone else. There are plenty of white and migrant families struggling too. No one cries a river about them. :rolleyes:

We are discussing a group that was driven nearly to extinction, right?

But you're right, it's not like any other group that was a victi mof genocide ever gained political sovereignty and receives billions in aid fro ma Western nation... oh, wait.

Volcana
Oct 26th, 2007, 04:00 AM
They have the opportunity to work and succeed like anyone else. There are plenty of white and migrant families struggling too. No one cries a river about them. :rolleyes:
In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan "There he goes again!"

Do aboriginals have the opportunity to work and succeed? Yes.

"like everybody else"? No.

And I'd bet money you knew that before you wrote what you did.

OTOH, life ain't fair. As I tell my nephews, as American Black males, the society (in the USA) DOES make a greater effort to see them in jail. That doesn't mean they can't wind up a total success. It means they can't hang out smokin' dope and cheap shoplifting convictions. I've seen it. A white kid gets probation, and a suppressed record, a black kid get jail time. But nobody MAKES that Black kid smoke dope. That Black kid could get an MBA, go into business, and wind up the head of a Fortune 1000 company. Is his raod as easy as a white kid with the same basic ability? No. But maybe life doesn't ever GET to 'fair'. Maybe 'fair' is another false front.

Sam L
Oct 26th, 2007, 04:02 AM
"like everybody else? No.

Yes. I've seen many that's done it.

Mr_Molik
Oct 26th, 2007, 04:07 AM
We are discussing a group that was driven nearly to extinction, right?

But you're right, it's not like any other group that was a victi mof genocide ever gained political sovereignty and receives billions in aid fro ma Western nation... oh, wait.
Correct.
This is a group of people who were not even recognised as citizens, and allowed the basic right to vote, until 1962. This in their own country, one they had inhabited for tens of thousands of years. And to this day they live in third world conditions in remote communities, in this, the so called lucky country (only lucky if you are white). But don't listen to me, I must just be a bleeding heart liberal. :rolleyes:

Sam L
Oct 26th, 2007, 04:10 AM
Correct.
This is a group of people who were not even recognised as citizens, and allowed the basic right to vote, until 1962. This in their own country, one they had inhabited for tens of thousands of years. And to this day they live in third world conditions in remote communities, in this, the so called lucky country (only lucky if you are white). But don't listen to me, I must just be a bleeding heart liberal. :rolleyes:

You need to like find a job or study at university because there are plenty of migrants - non-whites - that are doing well. Very well, in fact. :lol:

Mr_Molik
Oct 26th, 2007, 04:12 AM
Yes. I've seen many that's done it.

Do you mean people with white skin who have had a "European" upbringing and are only 1/16 or so Aboriginal? Because that is completely different to those living in the remote communities where the inequality is.

Mr_Molik
Oct 26th, 2007, 04:15 AM
You need to like find a job or study at university because there are plenty of migrants - non-whites - that are doing well. Very well, in fact. :lol:
I do study at university.
There are obviously examples of successful people from all walks of life in Australia, but they are few and far between.
How many Aboriginal people are there in parliament? How many blacks? How many Asians?

Sam L
Oct 26th, 2007, 04:21 AM
I do study at university.
There are obviously examples of successful people from all walks of life in Australia, but they are few and far between.
How many Aboriginal people are there in parliament? How many blacks? How many Asians?

And what percentage of Australia is Aboriginal? Asian? :confused: You want parliament to be 50% Aboriginal when only 1% of the population is Aboriginal? :confused:

Success comes from the individual not the culture or the ethnicity. You need to research the amount of funding that goes into Aboriginal communities and then come back and talk. Your attitude is one of many that simply shifts the blame from them to us. This kind of thinking doesn't help.

Donny
Oct 26th, 2007, 04:32 AM
And what percentage of Australia is Aboriginal? Asian? :confused: You want parliament to be 50% Aboriginal when only 1% of the population is Aboriginal? :confused:

Success comes from the individual not the culture or the ethnicity. You need to research the amount of funding that goes into Aboriginal communities and then come back and talk. Your attitude is one of many that simply shifts the blame from them to us. This kind of thinking doesn't help.

That's a line used very often here in America. 9 times out of ten, it's used to justify some sort of inequality.

Aborigines, from what I gather, are doing worse than European Australians. Am I to believe that "individual" Aborigines are simply not as intelligent or hardworking as Europeans?

A simple glance at history tells the same story- people who have power will blame the individual to explain away endemic poverty and inequity between two groups.

Sam L
Oct 26th, 2007, 04:39 AM
Aborigines, from what I gather, are doing worse than European Australians. Am I to believe that "individual" Aborigines are simply not as intelligent or hardworking as Europeans?

No. I've seen plenty of Aborigines that are doing well in universities and work places. There are Aborigines that are worse off than the rest and there are white Australians that are worse off than the rest and there are migrants that are worse off than the rest. Poverty does not have a colour.

Donny
Oct 26th, 2007, 04:43 AM
No. I've seen plenty of Aborigines that are doing well in universities and work places. There are Aborigines that are worse off than the rest and there are white Australians that are worse off than the rest and there are migrants that are worse off than the rest. Poverty does not have a colour.

Indeed. Now who is more likely to be poor? Is it Aborigines? If so, why are they more likely to be poor? It's either the environment in which they were raised, their genetics, or a mixture a both.

Mr_Molik
Oct 26th, 2007, 04:44 AM
Why is it then that the average life expectancy of an Aborigine is 20 years less than that of any other Australian? 20 years less.

Mr_Molik
Oct 26th, 2007, 04:54 AM
No. I've seen plenty of Aborigines that are doing well in universities and work places. There are Aborigines that are worse off than the rest and there are white Australians that are worse off than the rest and there are migrants that are worse off than the rest. Poverty does not have a colour.
Ok, so you've seen a few individual cases. It's like saying, "My grandmother smoked all her life, and lived until she was 120". May be true, but doesn't change the fact that the majority of smokers will die much earlier than those who don't. How about you provide us with some evidence rather than such vague stories?

Mr_Molik
Oct 26th, 2007, 04:57 AM
4% of indigenous Australians hold a University degree, compared to 21% of Australians as a whole. Why is this so? Is it because only 4 in 100 individual Aborigines want a tertiary education? No. It is because more Aborigines are living in poverty than other Australians, and don't have access to such an education.

Philbo
Oct 26th, 2007, 08:12 AM
SAM L - I suppose you also dont belive that any of the aboriginal deaths while in custody are suspicious?

You are a fucking fool if you think that aboriginals have as much chance of being succesful in australian society as your average white person. Yes there are some govt initiatives that try to help them out of poverty, but they are fairly recent measures and when you decimate an entire race, it takes generations to repair.

YOu really are one cold hearted prick I have to say. You do not have a compassionate bone in your body.

Sam L
Oct 26th, 2007, 02:13 PM
Haven't made up my mind. I may even decide it's Hillary. Kucinich most closelyreflects my own positions, but he's not getting the nomination.

Certainly there are none of the Republican candidates I'd vote for over one of the Democrats, but the Democrats could nominate someone I disliked enough that I might vote third party. I've voted in every presidential election since I was old enough to vote, and only once have I voted for a Democrat or a Republican. That was 2004. I think the two party system, as practiced in the USA, is hopelessly corrupt. But the Republicans are even more corrupt than the Democrats, which is awfully hard to do. Actually, I don't think Obama is corrupted yet, but by the time he gets done making enough compromises to get the nomination, he will be. And in his case, since he'll surely be assassinated in office, who his VP is will be VERY important.

LOL! I agree with Kucinich about A LOT of things too. Which really is funny because we disagree so much.

Actually, this brings me to an important question. You're clearly anti-war. But you feel that Kucinich closely reflects your positions. So I've come across a lot of people who thinks they're anti-war and thinks that Ron Paul is the only solution for them. Why do you think that is? Why do you think they don't jump on the Kucinich bandwagon? Which is why I feel that there's a greater evil at work with regard to Ron Paul and his followers. It's like a cult.

Sam L
Oct 26th, 2007, 02:22 PM
Indeed. Now who is more likely to be poor? Is it Aborigines? If so, why are they more likely to be poor? It's either the environment in which they were raised, their genetics, or a mixture a both.

Why is it then that the average life expectancy of an Aborigine is 20 years less than that of any other Australian? 20 years less.

Ok, so you've seen a few individual cases. It's like saying, "My grandmother smoked all her life, and lived until she was 120". May be true, but doesn't change the fact that the majority of smokers will die much earlier than those who don't. How about you provide us with some evidence rather than such vague stories?

4% of indigenous Australians hold a University degree, compared to 21% of Australians as a whole. Why is this so? Is it because only 4 in 100 individual Aborigines want a tertiary education? No. It is because more Aborigines are living in poverty than other Australians, and don't have access to such an education.

This argument has digressed so far beyond the original point that it'll be no use continuing it in this thread.

Suffice to say that my original point was really just that political parties like the Greens are bleeding heart liberal parties that has a lot of good policies but ultimately undermines their positions by arguing for such trivial issues like saying sorry.

And yes, there, I've said it again. It's a trivial issue and we shouldn't be saying sorry for what we didn't do. And I don't think election issues should be about things like that when the wider population is facing issues like terrorism, climate change, interest rates and jobs. Focus on issues that affect everyone not narrow interest groups.

Volcana
Oct 26th, 2007, 08:46 PM
LOL! I agree with Kucinich about A LOT of things too. Which really is funny because we disagree so much.

Actually, this brings me to an important question. You're clearly anti-war.I'm anti the Iraq War. I actually favored our actions in Afghanistan. And while I felt Kuwait provoked Iraq in the first Oil War, I did feel that Bush Sr did the minimum amount he was treaty bound to do.

I don't favor wars of aggression.

But you feel that Kucinich closely reflects your positions. So I've come across a lot of people who thinks they're anti-war and thinks that Ron Paul is the only solution for them. Why do you think that is? Why do you think they don't jump on the Kucinich bandwagon? Which is why I feel that there's a greater evil at work with regard to Ron Paul and his followers. It's like a cult.[/quote]

Who knows?

Some of that is your base level Republican vs Democrat. They don't even know what Kucinich's positions are, and even if they did, they wouldn't support him because he's only a Democrat.

Also, Ron Paul really is a minimalist about government, and really does favor strict fiscal discipline. Bush II has clearly proven to people that mainstream Republicans politicians don't favor minimal government and that they aren't fiscally disciplined.

Ron Paul is a more dynamic speaker than Kucinich.

Kucinich ran in 2004. You could say that MSM has already marginalized him. MSM is trying to marginalize Ron Paul, but his internet support is strong and young. It's hard for MSM to marginalize a candidate on that level.

Kucinich's positions are slightly more extreme versions of Edwards' or Obama's or Richardson's positions. Ron Paul's position are totally at odds with the other Republican candidates.
Which is why I feel that there's a greater evil at work with regard to Ron Paul and his followers. It's like a cult.I don't regard Ron Paul or hs followers as inherently evil. But I'm not a minimalist about government. I regard unfettered capitalism as an inherent evil, and government as one bulwark against it.

Ron Paul and I disagree. But I do believe he's honest.

Donny
Oct 26th, 2007, 09:00 PM
The two question are a) ALL of them? As Richardson has promised. and b) When? Richardson says it can be done in six months. Hillary won't even promise to do it by 20013.
We disagree
I think what the 'something' is, is important. Trading pollution credits is a bullshit answer to the problem.
Haven't made up my mind. I may even decide it's Hillary. Kucinich most closelyreflects my own positions, but he's not getting the nomination.

Certainly there are none of the Republican candidates I'd vote for over one of the Democrats, but the Democrats could nominate someone I disliked enough that I might vote third party. I've voted in every presidential election since I was old enough to vote, and only once have I voted for a Democrat or a Republican. That was 2004. I think the two party system, as practiced in the USA, is hopelessly corrupt. But the Republicans are even more corrupt than the Democrats, which is awfully hard to do. Actually, I don't think Obama is corrupted yet, but by the time he gets done making enough compromises to get the nomination, he will be. And in his case, since he'll surely be assassinated in office, who his VP is will be VERY important.

Your post is confusing to me. You seem to rule out Kucinich as your pick because he's not likely to win the nomination, but have frequently voted third party, knowing that they can't realistically take even a state's electoral votes, much less win nationwide.

miffedmax
Oct 26th, 2007, 09:16 PM
I think you've answered your question in your post. In a state where you know one candidate will take all the electoral votes, you can throw a protest vote around without really losing your say. A lot of states apportion votes in primaries, so you're more reluctant to waste it.