Official AppleInsider Political Affiliation Poll

European

Anti Blair / Bush :mad:

American

non-aligned, but generally "conservative" leaning.

USA

Individualist/Conservative. Registered independent.

Texan
Hardcore Republican <img src="graemlins/nono.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

Pro-Abortion
Pro-Guns
Pro-Pro :p

Come an TRY to take my guns! You'll die tryin.

Bush in '04 Gore's a BORE

BTW, jhtrih... You of course realize that being pro-Blair that you are for Labor, while at the same time, you're pro-big business which is anti-labor... how are you still able to think straight...

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Mac Guru ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by cdhostage:
<strong>What is your current nationality and your political affiliation?

USA
Technologist</strong><hr></blockquote>

What's the Technologist party?

I don't believe in parties. And I don't vote for PC clowns.

[quote]Originally posted by Nebrie:
<strong>

What's the Technologist party?</strong><hr></blockquote>

A small party in the NorthEast dedicated to the advancement of science and technology in the United States. Very pro-education, pro-research, etc .

USA
Registered Republican, but pretty fed up and disgusted with both sides these days. Spineless, ass-covering hacks on BOTH sides of the aisle and I'm not a particular fan of any political figure these days.

But, I'm DEFINITELY to the right of center on matters cultural, fiscal, etc. BUT I have a big heart regarding those who, through no fault of their own (read: children, the TRULY oppressed or abused, etc.) have it tough. I'm no fire-breathing, right wing nutbar and I don't "hate" anyone.

Gee, that really sucks...the debate is so skewed and the cards are so stacked against ANYTHING remotely right-wing and conservative, that I just felt compelled to write a qualifying paragraph, letting everyone know I'm not in the KKK or that I don't get marching orders from Limbaugh, Liddy, etc.

Great.

:rolleyes:

United States

Not yet old enough to vote, but I would probably side with the Republicans on most issues.

[quote]Re-elect Gore in 2004!<hr></blockquote>

Hmm...that's right, Bush was elected four times last fall so he can't run again. :D

Daschle 2004
Dem

anti big Tobacco, oil, microsoft
<img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[Cheers]" />

[quote]Originally posted by wired:
<strong>Hmm...that's right, Bush was elected four times last fall so he can't run again. :D </strong><hr></blockquote>

Really? I don't seem to remember anybody counting ALL the votes.

<rant>
Stupid lying media. This week, the front page of my newspaper announced, "Bush won media recount." I open the newspaper and read the article. They counted the votes in 7 different ways. Turns out that Bush only came out ahead in 3 of those 7 methods, while Gore came out ahead in 4 of them.

A statewide recount is required by Florida law in all races that have results within a 5% margin. This was never done. If the law of Florida had been followed properly, Al Gore would have come out ahead by some 171 votes. </rant>

Don't believe the media's lies. They're covering up the greatest hijack of democracy that's ever taken place. George Bush did not win that election. He is not our legitimate president.

Canadian
No political affiliations

[quote]Stupid lying media. This week, the front page of my newspaper announced, "Bush won media recount."<hr></blockquote>

For the record, mine said Gore. Why the hell they thought Nova Scotians (in general) actually want that on the front page is far beyond the scope of this thread.

Canada

I do not respect any of the political parties here.

American (until I own enough land to secede)
registered Libertarian (in an ideal world I'd be an anarchist, and when I've recently had contact with "average" Americans I tend to lead more towards communism :eek: )

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: nonhuman ]</p>

USA
Independent

The only reason I'm not a registered Green Party member is I refuse to align myself with a particular group. If I had to choose, though, I'd go Green. More subsidized social services, campaign finance reform, gun control, and instant runoff elections like in Ireland!!!

And by the way, Ralph Nader is one of maybe five honest, noble, virtuous, sincere politicians we have left. *ducks to avoid bottles and rotten fruit*

[quote]Originally posted by Mac Guru:
<strong>BTW, jhtrih... You of course realize that being pro-Blair that you are for Labor, while at the same time, you're pro-big business which is anti-labor... how are you still able to think straight...[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Mac Guru ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

You obviously haven't caught on to the change within the Labour party in the UK: Blair has refashioned the party "New Labour" which certainly seems to be pro-big business to me. jhtrih is certainly not contradicting himself when he claims to be pro-Blair and pro-big business.

Personally I think Blair looks a bit like a woodchuck in a windtunnel at times. Then I look at Bush. Can there be no hope? I have grown less and less confident in organised politics in general.

USA
Anti Bush - I just love the way he is going back on so many things that he supported or was against on his platform when running for prez.
DOJ and Supreme Court are also a joke IMHO.

American
Moderate Republican (oxymoron?)

If I had to use smilies to sum up my political views, it might look something like this: <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>
NOTE: you cannot be a pro-life libertarian, that makes no sense, either you believe in individuals choice or you don't (unless you think that a fetus, though it has no language or identity and no real human capacities for living without the mother can be ranked at the same level as the mother)</strong><hr></blockquote>

The same can be said about a 6 week-old child. Do you believe in infanticide? I know that's a radioactive question but I'm serious. The implication of your parenthetical remark suggests that an infant has no right to life either.

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>

good point Ramjet, however I think that the ability to survive ot of the womb, which is really very early during a pregnancy (at this minute I shoud know) and general human features is more to the point of what I am talking about . . . at least with respect to "ability to survive"

Guys, please make a new thread about killing babies. This is a political poll.

Ohioan.

(The only state ever to invade and conquer another!)

(before living in Britain for a year) apathetic Republican

(after living in Britain for a year) Broken Glass Republican

[quote]Originally posted by flowerbob:
<strong>bush represents the four things that are worst about america and american society and "values"</strong><hr></blockquote>

The observer will note the use of the vague word 'represents'. This saves Flowerbob from the necessity of actually saying anything with substance.

Examples of "substance": "I disagree with Bush's statement that X." "I oppose a piece of legislation Y or executive order Z which Bush supports or promulgated."

Instead we have a treatment of Mr. Bush as a sort of symbolic literary figure.

If you don't have anything to say, why expend so much effort not doing it?

[quote]Originally posted by Mandricard:
<strong>Bush can only "represent" the right-wing agenda, because he can not think for himself.</strong><hr></blockquote>

See above. What on earth does this mean? That he doesn't formulate his own policies, relying instead on staffers to do this? That he literally receives a faxed list of commandments every morning? That he tends to base his decisions on focus groups?

(suspected answer) Mandricard saw somebody say this on television once, and has now taken to repeating it. Hrm. We were talking about thinking for oneself, I thought.

[quote]Originally posted by Mandricard:
<strong>Bush can only "represent" the right-wing agenda, because he can not think for himself.

Instead of a quarterback, we have a water-boy.

:rolleyes:

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: Mandricard ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Just be glad Gore isn't in office. He would still be hiding under the desk ;)

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>I'm in The Installers party

Pro Re-United Ireland
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Wow... this Installer doesn't like partitions either!

:)

[quote]Originally posted by jamiemarshall:
<strong>I'm Scottish and proud to be a Conservative.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well there has to be at least 1. It must be quite loneley up there. :D :D

European.

You want proof G-Dub's a *dip*?

Calling the current war a "crusade" wasn't exactly smart. FYI that was when Christians made an obscene intrusion on Islam ... and got their arses kicked. I bet that made our Islamic allies feel *great*.

Doh. No, hold on, not, "doh." HUGE INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC SCREWUP AT A CRUCIAL TIME.

Howabout that GREAT interview done before the "election" where Dub gets asked who the President of Pakistan is and he has to say, "Nope, don't know that one either." Not so damn funny now.

But hey, to be Pres all you need is a few weeks of briefings (no, previous travel experience not necessary) and you're ready to run a war!

Woohoo!

[quote]Originally posted by ColorClassicG4:
<strong>(suspected answer) Mandricard saw somebody say this on television once, and has now taken to repeating it. Hrm. We were talking about thinking for oneself, I thought.</strong><hr></blockquote>

1) actually made that little analogy up myself. :cool:

2) ad hominem attacks are not refutations :rolleyes:

3) no one needs to go into how ignorant of policy both foreign and domestic our president is. If you don't see it, I am sorry for you, but most do. (the list was started, but by no means ended, above.)

4) his pandering to the right-wing of his party (those who got him elected in the first place) is totally transparent. He may cast himself as moderate, but knows where his bread is buttered.

Anyway, this is not a "political argument" thread, but a "political affiliation" thread.

So...

Independent
Liberal

(ducking)

Mandricard
AppleOutsider

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Mandricard ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Harald:
<strong>
You want proof G-Dub's a *dip*?</strong><hr></blockquote>

You want proof that Harald doesn't know what he's talking about?

[quote]<strong>Calling the current war a "crusade" wasn't exactly smart. FYI that was when Christians made an obscene intrusion on Islam ... </strong><hr></blockquote>

FYI the Crusades were a belated response to the intrusion of Islam on the Christian world. Modern Turkey was once at the heart of the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire was Christian. Instanbul was once called Constantinople after the Roman Emperor Constantine - allegedly the first Christian Roman Emperor.

[quote]<strong> .. and got their arses kicked.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, you got that part right. So what's bin Laden bitching about? The Muslims weren't victims of the Crusaders. They were victors over the Crusaders.

[quote]<strong>I bet that made our Islamic allies feel *great*.</strong><hr></blockquote>

If they knew their history, they may have indulged in an ironic chuckle.

[quote]<strong>Doh. No, hold on, not, "doh." HUGE INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC SCREWUP AT A CRUCIAL TIME.</strong><hr></blockquote>

No it wasn't. The Administration just took a step sideways and then moved on to more important matters.

[quote]<strong>Howabout that GREAT interview done before the "election" where Dub gets asked who the President of Pakistan is and he has to say, "Nope, don't know that one either." Not so damn funny now. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Quick now, who's the President of Uzbekistan?

[quote]<strong>But hey, to be Pres all you need is a few weeks of briefings (no, previous travel experience not necessary) and you're ready to run a war!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Looks like he was.

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Mojo the Monkey:
<strong>

Really? I don't seem to remember anybody counting ALL the votes.

<rant>
Stupid lying media. This week, the front page of my newspaper announced, "Bush won media recount." I open the newspaper and read the article. They counted the votes in 7 different ways. Turns out that Bush only came out ahead in 3 of those 7 methods, while Gore came out ahead in 4 of them.

A statewide recount is required by Florida law in all races that have results within a 5% margin. This was never done. If the law of Florida had been followed properly, Al Gore would have come out ahead by some 171 votes. </rant>

Don't believe the media's lies. They're covering up the greatest hijack of democracy that's ever taken place. George Bush did not win that election. He is not our legitimate president.</strong><hr></blockquote>

American: Oregonian: Republican: Bush Won: Get Over It.

If you had read that article a little closer you would have seen that all the methods that Gore had been asking for were the ones that Bush won, so even if the recount HAD gone foreward, Gore would have lost. And the Supreme Court does not seem to agree with you assertions on Florida State Law, nor did most of their elected officials. :rolleyes:

Besides, I truly do not think that Gore would have been prepared for, or able to deal with what is going on right now. He sure did not seem to help Clinton much when the embassies were bombed, or the Cole, or TWA Flight 800, or the many other terrorist attacks that occurred under Clinton/Gore's 8 year watch.

<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-madden110201.shtml" target="_blank">This</a> is from a recent article by Thomas F. Madden over at NRO.

[quote] ... The event that led to the crusades was the Turkish conquest of most of Christian Asia Minor (modern Turkey). The Christian emperor in Constantinople, faced with the loss of half of his empire, appealed for help to the rude but energetic Europeans. He got it. More than he wanted, in fact... <hr></blockquote>

<a href="http://www.greece.org/Romiosini/fall.html" target="_blank">Here's something</a> on the fall of Constantinople.

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>

I can see that not much has changed around here. Still a very liberal leaning board. Good thing it is not just a political board, I might start to get an odd view of the world around me. BTW, I am very happy to be back, and look foreward to more talking with all of you (even the Libs, Dems, Greens, and Commies). :-D

Oh and Pro-Life, Pro-Guns (esp in light of recent terrorist attacks), Christian, Pro Bush, Anti-bin Laden, Pro-Military, Pro-USA (the recent attacks were not deserved by the U.S., nor were we "asking for them"), Pro-Mac, and emerging Mac Pro. :)

[quote]Originally posted by Mandricard:
<strong>Are you then implying that adherents to a particular set of religious beliefs are not free to spread those beliefs? Or is it just that force should not be used when promulgating one's particular religious views? Or are you implying that Islam's rapid spread across the Middle East in the 7th through 9th centuries is somehow a special case?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Harald described the Crusades as an obscene intrusion on Islam. They were not an intrusion. They were a defensive in nature. They were a response to Islam's intrusion.

As for using force to spread one's faith, I'm against it no matter who did it.

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>That's a little more blanket of an assertion than I'm comfortable with. Besides it's not accurate. Muslims have killed more fellow Muslims than has Israel.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You are right, it was a bit more blanket than I had intended. But the base assertion I think stands. Just because they are more violent towards one another than others have been to them does not mean that the religious tenets are not as said. After all, not all Christians follow all their religious tenets as intended by Scripture either. That does not mean though that Christianity as described in the Bible is really only what is practiced by its followers. All people involved in religion are this way to some extent. After all we are only human.

I wonder though, if you put up a chart of how many Muslims were killed by Israelis vs. Muslims and and how many Israelis were killed by Muslims vs. Israelis what would that chart look like?

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: NoahJ ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>I can see that not much has changed around here. Still a very liberal leaning board. Good thing it is not just a political board, I might start to get an odd view of the world around me.</strong><hr></blockquote>Just to make sure I wasn't seeing things, after I read this I went back and counted Liberals/Dems vs. Conservatives/Repubs. I got about 15 on the right and about 14 on the left (it was hard to tell with some, but I put anti-Bush, Green, or liberal on the left, and conservative, libertarian, or republican on the right).

Those liberals they're everywhere! They're coming after me! See there's another one!
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

USA
Libertarian

French.

Liberal Marxist. Bring it on.

[quote]Originally posted by SYN:
<strong>
Osama Bin Laden is not a Muslim.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes he is. As far as I know Islam has no means to excommunicate anybody. Bin Laden has as much right to claim to be following the Koran as anybody. He is an embarassment to many Muslims though.

[quote]Socialist/Individualist<hr></blockquote>

eh? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

anyhoo.

USA
Individualist (borderline Objectivist)

And I've got to say, I'm disturbed by how many people around here seem to base their opinions of the President of mass-email forwards...

beer, I had the same reaction to "Socialist/Individualist"

Just say the catch-all:
"USA
Know-it-all teenage smart-ass"

;)

[quote]Originally posted by ColorClassicG4:
The observer will note the use of the vague word 'represents'. This saves Flowerbob from the necessity of actually saying anything with substance.<hr></blockquote>
by "represents" i mean that these are things which he thinks are good and which are important parts of his political platform. i will happily provide some substance (actually, i won't. i would be much happier if I couldn't, but, unfortunately, my claims have grounds).
a) "fuzzy math." need i say more? it's an appeal to the ignorance and stupidity of the average american, which translates roughly to "i'm stupid like you so vote for me"
b) are there really questions about this? he's pro-death penalty, anti-gun control and he's currently waging a war.
c) he wants government money for faith-based organizations. wants prayer in school. :blech:
d) he's a business man, a friend of big business, and is opposed to real environmental regulations ("voluntary regulations" are *NOT* regulations).
[quote]If you don't have anything to say, why expend so much effort not doing it?<hr></blockquote>
my apologies. it was poor form.

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
Sound like a opinion to me ;)<hr></blockquote>
yup. one i am ready to explain and defend.

[quote]Originally posted by Mandricard:
Are you then implying that adherents to a particular set of religious beliefs are not free to spread those beliefs? Or is it just that force should not be used when promulgating one's particular religious views? Or are you implying that Islam's rapid spread across the Middle East in the 7th through 9th centuries is somehow a special case?<hr></blockquote>
it's bad enough that there are adherants of particular religious beliefs, without them going around and trying to make more of themselves. and trying to use violence to force somebody to believe in another god is stupid and criminal and evil.
nobody should ever take any action to try to coerce another person's belief system. (and yes I am aware of the inherant hypocrisy of any argument favoring this philosophy)

[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
Islam is not about peace and love, except to other Islamic people. Anyone else is the infidel and if they do not convert they should be put to death. It is in their Koran. Look it up. :(
And before you say Christians are the same way, we are not. Look it up, in context.<hr></blockquote>
Actually, neither religion is "supposed" to be about violence. It just turns out that historically both have been. Because religion is like that. like race, people use it as a channeling of hatred, an excuse to go around killing each other. stupid people make religion stupid.
anyway, the most deaths "over religion" are not at all about religious ideals. neither the Arab invasion of Europe nor the "retaliatory" Crusades were about religion for the people leading them. while for some of the people "on the ground" the idea of going to hevean (or the islamic equivalent) allowed them to get themselves killed, we also see that in very few cases in history has this alone been sufficient to motivate something of the scale of these wars. there is always need for a leading force, and for this force, the wars were about power, conquest, spoils, etc. (hence the looting of the Byzantine empire by the very christians who were supposed to be helping the Byzantines, when they were returning home defeated and without the spoils they expected to win).
[quote]Look at the Taliban and their current laws (based on Strict Islam).<hr></blockquote>
note that there are many countries across the Islamic world with the Koran as their legal constitutions, and they do not have laws like the Taliban's. the Taliban represents [i]an[/]i (extreme) interpretation of the Koran, and not necessarily (as they believe) the "one and only correct" interpretation.

[quote]Originally posted by flowerbob:
<strong>
a) "fuzzy math." need i say more? it's an appeal to the ignorance and stupidity of the average american, which translates roughly to "i'm stupid like you so vote for me"
b) are there really questions about this? he's pro-death penalty, anti-gun control and he's currently waging a war.
c) he wants government money for faith-based organizations. wants prayer in school. :blech:
d) he's a business man, a friend of big business, and is opposed to real environmental regulations ("voluntary regulations" are *NOT* regulations).</strong><hr></blockquote>

A) How is "fuzzy math" saying we're all stupid so vote for me? He was making a point that their math is less based on facts than it is on how they want you to interpret the facts. For instance, calling a reduction in a spending increase a cut of a program even though the spending is still going up.

B)That hardly makes him a warmonger. The war we are in is justified and Al Gore would be in it too if he were president (at least I hope so, if he was not he would be facing an angry public and a bigger terrorist problem than before as they found that the US cowered and did not stand up to them). I am pro guns and pro death penalty as well, so whatever.

C)He wants to be able to help all charities, including those which are faith based. It is more about removing the restrictions to giving to faith based programs than just helping those that are faith based.

D)Al Gore is quite different in this respect. Also a business man (tobacco instead of industrial), environmentalist ("that internal cumbustion engine is the biggest threat to civilization today" now let me get in my limo and go to the airport and fly across the country to speak again and then fly back tonight. :rolleyes: ) Hypocritical to say the least. But we would sure get some doozy laws to protect the environment at the expense of the economy, and anything else. There needs to be a balance which no one has found yet.

In short, Bush is doing just fine, Gore would be no better, and I think he would not have done as well.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>beer, I had the same reaction to "Socialist/Individualist"

Just say the catch-all:
"USA
Know-it-all teenage smart-ass"

;) </strong><hr></blockquote>

Before I bother gracing you with my laborious keystrokes, I'd just like to say this to you in particular, groverat: **** you.

Anyhoo, I'm an individualist in that I feel the government should, for the most part, stay out of business economics rules, as well as the government staying out of my personal life. However, I like some of the not-so-zealous pieces of ideas that are usually considered "socialist" or "communist" by some--mainly redistribution of wealth, equality, and all of that. It's more achievable than you might think without the government controlling every aspect of our lives, work, and economy.

It just goes to show that YES! you can have unique viewpoints, and NO! you don't have to fit yourself into the stereotypical labelled viewtypes that already exist.

Think Different. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

[quote]Originally posted by bradbower:
<strong>
Anyhoo, I'm an individualist in that I feel the government should, for the most part, stay out of business economics rules, as well as the government staying out of my personal life. However, I like some of the not-so-zealous pieces of ideas that are usually considered "socialist" or "communist" by some--mainly redistribution of wealth, equality, and all of that. It's more achievable than you might think without the government controlling every aspect of our lives, work, and economy.

It just goes to show that YES! you can have unique viewpoints, and NO! you don't have to fit yourself into the stereotypical labelled viewtypes that already exist.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You can have unique points of view out the yin yang. Whether you can actually reconcile these different ideas into something coherent is another story entirely. This is something you didn't do. You just gave us a few of the ideas you support. You didn't do any of the intellectual spadework.

[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>

You can have unique points of view out the yin yang. Whether you can actually reconcile these different ideas into something coherent is another story entirely. This is something you didn't do. You just gave us a few of the ideas you support. You didn't do any of the intellectual spadework.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Mm-hmm. I believe this thread was about what political affiliations you fall under, and I was naming those--not explaining my opinions in their entirety. So what's the problem with that again?

[quote]Originally posted by bradbower:
<strong>
Mm-hmm. I believe this thread was about what political affiliations you fall under, and I was naming those--not explaining my opinions in their entirety. So what's the problem with that again?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yep, but you are the one who wrote: "It just goes to show that YES! you can have unique viewpoints, and NO! you don't have to fit yourself into the stereotypical labelled viewtypes that already exist."

You showed that you have a unique point of view, all right. But so what? I'll be impressed if you can show how you resolve the internal inconsistencies in your beliefs.

brad, so you basically don't know what you're talking about? Does that sum it up?

[quote]...I feel the government should, for the most part, stay out of business economics rules...<hr></blockquote>

And then:

[quote]However, I like ... redistribution of wealth...<hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

So which is it?

You have all the proper ideals down pat but you're forgetting what they actually mean.

You're a socialist capitalist? You're a democratic fascist?

[quote]It's more achievable than you might think without the government controlling every aspect of our lives, work, and economy.<hr></blockquote>

Tell me, how might you go about redistributing wealth without government intervention?

"Equality" is a vague term used by vague minds, be more specific.

[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>even so, the Crusades were a particularly vicious form of reclamation... and in one of the crusades, unusually bloody and unnecessarily murderous</strong><hr></blockquote>

All of them were, in fact, at least by modern standards.

And so were the initial Arab takeovers of the cities, and the massacres when Islam retook the Crusader cities such as Acre.

The modern idea of the Crusades as these bizarre attempts at ethnic cleansing by greedy Europeans desiring wealth is amusing on a number of levels. I suppose the winners really do write the history books.

Oh, if you actually want to know something about the Crusades, read this:
<a href="http://http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire111501.shtml" target="_blank">an excellent article on the Crusades</a>.

It refutes many of the usual modern myths, such as that any of the Crusaders thought they had much to gain economically.

USA
The GOP. :) But also environmentally minded.

I think the two party system needs to be gotten rid of. We need to vote for a person not the party. Not to mention it would open up more choices. What if a President that is running is for BOTH abortion AND Capitol Punishment. Or Against both? Can't happen in a system we have now.

[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>

:confused: Why not? That was basically Gore's position last time around. Granted, Democrats were too busy portraying Dubya as the "happy executioner" to notice but still...

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually Bill tried to play this ride the fence card during the elections too. It changed once he was in office.

[quote]Originally posted by bradbower:
<strong>that which the constitution allows us (rights that don't overlap others' rights), as well as taking actions that invade our privacy.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The United States Constitution does not "allow" United States citizens any rights. It explicitly recognizes fundamental human rights which already exist and gives the federal government notice that it is forbidden from infringing upon them. This is an extremely important difference. It means that the Constitution recognizes higher authority than itself.

A federal statute, on the other hand, can create new 'rights', such as the right to ask that federal trial procedure work in one way or another, or the right to demand certain pieces of information from the government. These are not fundamental rights on par with those recognized in the Constitution; they are merely created by government.

[quote]Originally posted by Mojo the Monkey:
<strong>Don't believe the media's lies. They're covering up the greatest hijack of democracy that's ever taken place. George Bush did not win that election. He is not our legitimate president.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Gore conceded the election, remember? Bush won by default. That's generally how it works. We don't go around meticulously counting each and every single vote, we just keep counting more and more of them until one guy says to the other guy, "Ok you win, see you again in four years." Which happens to be what happened in Florida (minus a few details) as well. See? The system was followed and the system worked :)

Oh, I'm from America and generally conservative. Please don't confuse conservative with republican, I'm really fed up with both parties right now.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Socialism is inherently contrary to individualism, you should see that.</strong><hr></blockquote>You could be a civil libertarian (very pro-Bill-of Rights, pro-choice on abortion, etc.) and still believe in heavy economic regulation.

I think that's what many old-fashioned US liberals are all about.

Individualism need not be just economic.

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: BRussell ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Arakageeta:
<strong>

(Statements about some having plenty are not relavent to this arguement since the starting basic assumption was that ALL should be allowed to be individuals-- not ALL except for the rich.)

Anyone know what the unemployment rate in France is right now? SYN, you know? Another question of SYN, is it worth it? I'm just curious. Even if a socialist government leads to greater unemployment, one can argue that the trade-offs are well worth it. (But you could kiss world super power goodbye)</strong><hr></blockquote>

- on the contrary, this seems like an extremely relavent component of this argument: because the question in a capitalist system becomes "how can one be an individual if they are not rich?" if the rich keep such an astonishing percentage of the wealth in this country, how can you possibly account for the disparity in the situations that people make their beginnings in? -

- Right, because, being a world super power is so incredibly important right? and who is to say that france is not a specific example with extenuating circumstances? Germany has a much more proportionally representative system than we do...but this delves more into the two-party system which could always be an interesting topic of conversation.

...obviously on the more liberal side of the political question, vote democrat, but do i honestly have a party?...

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: MmeSerena ]</p>

This isn't fun anymore, so I'll just say it outright: this entire thread is a joke if you're looking to argue about these things seriously, and in going with that I said all of those things which are OBVIOUSLY contradictory just to show, as I said (heh), arguing about labels is completely idiotic. Don't know what I mean? Read anything coming out of groverat's oriface. :D Well, that and to rile you angsty lot.

*cheers on Groverat*

Libertarian all the way. Do whatever the **** you want, so long as you cause no harm to anyone else.

[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>
And? They didn't conquer it in the name of Christianity. What's your point?</strong>

The point is that they conquered it. The Arabs and the Turks didn't conquer Europe in name of the Islam either. They conquered it in name of their own Empire. The Islam was the main religion in that part of the world way before the Romans decided to become Christian. They were a bunch of pagans like the rest of us at first.

Anyways, the main point is that they conquered it and forced their religion down those people's throat. They took it, the Arabs took it back, the crusaders tried to take it but failed. You make it sound like western civilizations have some sort of God given right to that area.

<strong>And it's a silly point to think that the President or a Presidential candidate should know the names of all the heads of state. I'm not the one who brought this subject up.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

No it's not. These are the people that he is supposed to work together with to make this world less of a shitehole than it is at the moment. Maybe if he did know their names he could talk to them rather than bomb them as soon as they don't jump when he tells them to.

The western world has never done anything for the Muslims in the middle east. So why should they help us or feel sorry for us? In the last two decades our politics have been to hate and despise everything we don't understand and bomb it if it doesn't change.

The Islam is not to blame for people like Bin Laden or Sadam Hussein. Communism wasn't to blame for the KGB or Stalin. So maybe we should get our facts straigth.

For the record, I'm a catholic and an Irish republican. I just don't believe in condemning everything that's different. Being what I am works for me, it doesn't work for everyone and that's why it's a good thing that there are other options.

Just because bad things have happened in the name of the Islam doesn't make everyone who believes in it a rotten apple.

I think I'm done now...

Whatever happened to naim?

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>

No it's not. These are the people that he is supposed to work together with to make this world less of a shitehole than it is at the moment. Maybe if he did know their names he could talk to them rather than bomb them as soon as they don't jump when he tells them to.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

There are something like a hundred and twenty different nations in the world, more or less. Each of them has a head of state and a foreign minister. I could see concern if a candidate didn't know the name of the British Prime Minister or the President of Mexico, but the President of Uzbekistan? You can be assured he does *now*, and it matters *now*.

[quote]
<strong>
The western world has never done anything for the Muslims in the middle east. So why should they help us or feel sorry for us?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

We saved Islam in Afghanistan from eradication at the hands of the Soviets.

We saved Egypt, Syria, and Turkey from Nazi conquest.

We saved Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from Iraqi conquest.

[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>

How do you figure that? Mohammed wasn't even born until 570. There's no way Islam could have been there first.

I don't have time for more right now. I'll write more later.</strong><hr></blockquote>

So what? Jesus wasn't born until 0. So there was no one God in Judea before then? Old Testament, New Testament....

Mohammed is their prophet, Allah is their God.

Anyway, you're main point was that the crusades were about getting something back that was taken quite a few centuries earlier. I pointed out to you that the Romans took it aswell so how can you justify taking something back that was unlawfully taken in the first place. How far back in history are you prepared to go?

So stick to your point. What it all comes down to is that when we were all cavemen there were no countries as we know them today. I bet there were territories though and fears and believes (that's what religion is in the end anyway). Maybe we should find out what the situation was then and go back to that?

<img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
So what? Jesus wasn't born until 0. So there was no one God in Judea before then? Old Testament, New Testament.... </strong><hr></blockquote>

I made no claim that Christianity was the first religion of this region only that it was there before Islam which it was. You can't say anything that refutes this so I'm not sure what your point is.

[quote]<strong>Anyway, you're main point was that the crusades were about getting something back that was taken quite a few centuries earlier. I pointed out to you that the Romans took it aswell so how can you justify taking something back that was unlawfully taken in the first place. </strong><hr></blockquote>

According to you but based on what? As ColorClassicG4 pointed out, the Romans came to rule this region because the last king of Bythnia bequeathed his kingdom to Rome. (Read ColorClassicG4's post on page 3 for the rest of the details.) That's as legitimate a transfer of power as you're going to get for that time in history.

[quote]<strong>So stick to your point. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, it would probably be better to not bother with the bizarre tangents you've wandered along. As to my point, my first post addressing this matter was in response to a post that said that the Crusades were an obscene intrusion into the world of Islam. Since Christianity predated Islam in this region that complaint doesn't make any sense.

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>

Excuse me? You saved Islam in Afghanistan? What did you do? Send Rambo over?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

We supplied the Afghan guerilla fighters with money and munitions, most significantly Stinger missiles to destroy low-flying aircraft.

As a result of this assistance the Afghans were able to defeat and drive out the Soviets. The aim of the Soviets in conquering Afghanistan was to remove the threat of militant Islam from their southern frontier. They attempted to do this by establishing a Marxist regime in Afghanistan and by implementing their official policy of atheism.

Permit me to editorialize that I am not surprised somebody who thinks that Islam predates Christianity is ignorant of Afghanistan's past history.

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
You're going to have to explain to me how you saved Saudi Arabia but as far as Kuwait goes you know as well as I do that that was about one thing. Oil.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I do not dispute the idea that the war was "about oil". (Is this for some reason a bad idea for a war?) You will note however that such an idea does not preclude the concept that we did something nice for the Muslims in the Middle East as a result.

We saved Saudi Arabia, of course, by interposing a massive army between Iraq and it, and by destroying the Iraqi army massed at its border.

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
And as far as Nazi Germany goes, define "We"... If it means the western world, I bet you, had Hitler only occupied countries that were not important to the British, nothing would have happened.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think it is a fair bet to say that by the time of the Second World War, there were no "countries" which were "not important to the British".

[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: ColorClassicG4 ]</p>