political thread...number 6

[jefhatfield]

i have very little confidence in our current president, but that does not mean i disregard the president's whole party

in two years, if the dems don't come up with a good candidate and the gop hypothetically has some challengers, i could see myself possibly going for;

liz dole
christy whitman
john mccain

condoleeza rice...though this is a long shot since she is in the president's cabinet

george bush sr...this too is highly unlikely but he was a highly unlikely and vocal opponent of ronald reagan in 1980 and eventually got chosen as reagan's running mate...go figure!

colin powell...but he would not run against his commander in chief

and finally, jack kemp would also be a possibility

on the democratic side, i like joe lieberman much more than i like hillary clinton (who has made no claim of running)

if richard gephardt got some support around him, i could go with him

i would not vote for rev sharpton

jesse jackson, however, could be good for america

al gore, if the economy stays slow in two years, could easily win but i don't think he will change his mind about political retirement

[Cursor]

By then, you might have Governor Schwarzeneggar calling the shots!:D But seriously, I don't think the GOP will have any challengers to the Pres. this election. I think that Clinton will waffle until the point when the tension is so high, the Dems beg her to run. Then she'll throw her hat in, probably win nomination, but not the presidency. If not in 2004, then DEFINITELY in 2008. Watch out, because if she wins, we could see the transformation into the United Socialists of America!

[G4scott]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
jesse jackson, however, could be good for america

You'll have to explain how it'll work to me...

If we put him in the presidency, they'd have to put oprah on prime time, they'd spend the government surplus to pay off people whose great great great grandfathers were once slaves, and the whitehouse would become a battlezone for the KKK...

Although with that much power, jesse jackson could wipe out the KKK...

Companies would be penalized by the governmet for not considering at least one african american for every job position...

You know, jesse jackson was pissed at Apple because they didn't have any blacks on their board of directors. In my opinion, if the person is qualified, that's all that matters. People should be hired, or even admitted into schools, by their merit and achievements. African americans have a chance to make something of themselves these days. Almost everyone in america does, they just have to have the motivation to take it. Too many minorities are sitting back, relaxing on welfare and government plans for the poor or 'economically disadvantaged', and then complaining when they can't get into a certain college, or can't get a good job when they need one. Most minorities have come to expect everything to be handed to them on a sliver platter, and people like jesse jackson are encouraging people to do this. They need to get over the fact that their ancestors were once looked down upon and used as slaves, and realize their potential as people, not leeches.

[jefhatfield]

i am a minority and last time i checked, i am not a leech

what makes you think jesse jackson would impose all businesses to have african americans considered for every position?

[wdlove]

Originally posted by Cursor
By then, you might have Governor Schwarzeneggar calling the shots!:D But seriously, I don't think the GOP will have any challengers to the Pres. this election. I think that Clinton will waffle until the point when the tension is so high, the Dems beg her to run. Then she'll throw her hat in, probably win nomination, but not the presidency. If not in 2004, then DEFINITELY in 2008. Watch out, because if she wins, we could see the transformation into the United Socialists of America!

Yes Hillary is just waiting till the time is right. If Bush looks weak in 2004, but her prederence is 2008. I wholehardly agree that she would move this country to socialism. :(

[GrandShenlong]

I don't condone anyone who is very closely tied with any religion. It's fine to be religious, heck, few people aren't. But to have a Reverend as President?! Separation of church and state, anyone?

Also, overt self-righteousness and self-confidence has no place in the Presidency. Thus, (I may be wrong on this point), I don't see any reason why Jesse Jackson should be allowed to win.

I really can't specifically comment on Hillary Clinton, but she gives me bad vibes.

[alex_ant]

I would like to see some candidates run for office who are not career politicians. Jesse Ventura, even if you didn't like him, was at least interesting and spoke for an underrepresented viewpoint. There are a few actors who have been rumored to be interested - I'd like to see Arnold Schwarzenegger and Warren Beatty run for any office just to take the place of the lawyers that would otherwise be elected. I'll bet if Bruce Springsteen ran for president, he would sweep with 70% of the popular vote no matter who his opponent.

I don't understand all the "Hillary Clinton = socialist" comments. She would be seen as moderate or maybe even a little conservative just about anywhere on mainland Western Europe. The U.S. is so politically conservative that anyone who is not what anywhere else on the planet would be considered a hardcore conservative is called a socialist, communist, leftist, anti-American bastard. (And wasn't that an impressive sentence?)

[zarathustra]

I don't think Bush Sr. is even a remote possibility. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson both give me the creeps just the way they are - but to have them as presidents??? Hillary has shown her true colors when she became senator - what exactly has she done for New York state to stay loyal to her voters? She seems powerhungry even for politician standards.

I really don't see a good candidate on the Democratic side. Joe Lieberman has not convinced me that he has a clear goal for the presidency/country. Plus, it would be hilarious to hear: " Ladies and gentlemen, the first lady of the United States of America, Haddasah Lieberman." You think the arab world accuses us of being Isreal friendly now - they will downright equate us with Israel. I am part Jewish myself, so don't even flame me for being religion insensitive.

On the Republican side it would be almost impossible to get a feasible candidate. Not now. I think Bush needs to be given the time to finish what he started. Let's hope war is not one of them.

[wdlove]

Laura's Weekly E-Blast!
http://www.LauraIngraham.com

THE ELITES VERSUS THE VOTERS

As Saddam continues to play hide and seek, many in the "world community"
want to take the opportunity to knock President George Bush off his high
horse. In an effort to do this, one prominent politician recently said
that America should:

-- embrace "a bold, progressive internationalism that stands in stark
contrast to the too often belligerent and myopic unilateralism of the Bush
Administration."

-- reject "the narrow vision of those who would build walls to keep the
world out" in favor of "forging coalitions and step by step creating a new
world of law and mutual security."

-- make "[a] choice between those who think you can build walls to keep
the world out, and those who want to tear down the barriers that separate
'us' from 'them.'"

-- eschew the Bush Administration's "blustering unilateralism" which "is
wrong, and even dangerous."

-- realize that the Bush approach to foreign affairs "has meant alienating
our long-time friends and allies, alarming potential foes and spreading
anti-Americanism around the world."

Who said the above? Jacques Chirac? Gerhard Schroeder? Good guesses. But
the statements were those of presidential hopeful, Senator John Kerry.

The remarks were part of Kerry's first major foreign policy speech since
announcing his likely White House bid. The address is a great window into
the mindset of today's liberals. Their strategy should be obvious by
now-advocate a foreign policy that favors international institutions over
American power, independence, and old-fashioned common sense.

John Kerry concedes that Saddam is a "menace," that he must be disarmed,
yet he insists that the US put its own security on the back burner until
the "international community" can be persuaded to do the right thing.
(Note: the burden is always on the US.)

Yet there is little sign that the international community is interested in
coming to grips with reality. On Monday chief UN weapons inspector Hans
Blix reported that the inspectors recently found thousands of pages of
documents hidden in the home of an Iraqi scientist, that some of those
papers dealt with uranium enrichment, that inspectors' request for 11
private interviews with Iraqi scientists have all been denied, that the
Iraqi declaration did not account for stockpiles of deadly VX and sarin
gas. The Blix conclusion: Give us more time to inspect.

According to UN Resolution 1441, passed unanimously by all 15 members of
the Security Council, such "omissions" or "misstatements" as those
outlined by Blix, automatically constitute material breach, which in turn
is to be met with "serious consequences."

Heaven forbid the UN actually enforce its own resolutions.

Given the non-reaction of our UN allies, Kerry's love-affair with
multilateralism is either venal or naïve or both. It is naïve to think
anything except that Germany and France prefer the status quo-they do not
care if Saddam is disarmed and would rather have him remain in power. Both
countries are more worried about maintaining their sweetheart business
deals with Saddam than stopping weapons proliferation.

At what point, using Kerry's foreign policy approach, would it be
appropriate for the US to go it alone? What if despite all the evidence of
Iraq's failure to comply, our so-called friends in the global village
won't budge? Is that still a failure, as Kerry claims, of the Bush
Administration?

The more malevolent interpretation is that many of today's Democrats are
intent on expanding our reliance on international institutions like the UN
because these bodies are inherently more liberal than American voters.
Kerry has more fans in Europe than he has in the fly-over states (like
Iowa), where he admitted he loathes visiting. Kerry warns of America's
reputation for arrogance. Again, that language could have been lifted
straight from last year's Gerhard Schroeder stump speech.

Here's the real kicker: Kerry says President Bush's "high-handed treatment
of our European allies, on everything from Iraq to the Kyoto climate
change treaty, has strained relations nearly to the breaking point." In
other words, if we only gave in on onerous emission regulations that would
hurt American business (Kyoto) and agreed that our soldiers be subjected
to the whims of an global judicial bureaucracy (International Criminal
Court), all of Europe would be nicer to us.

On taxes, the environment, and foreign policy, today's liberals are much
more aligned with the European elite than they are with American voters. A
majority of Americans still believe that our borders should be enforced,
that individual liberty should trump international bureaucracy, that
American independence should always come before concern about offending
the "interdependent global community." Much to the chagrin of Kerry and
his compatriots on the Left, the democratic process in the US has not
resulted in banning guns, the death penalty or SUVs. This means if
liberalism is to get off life-support in the US, it will need to do an
end-run around American voters as often as possible. That's where courts,
international institutions, non-governmental organizations (the ACLU,
ANSWER, etc.) enter the picture.

This strategy is a long-term one, and is supported by media, academic, and
Hollywood elites who think most Americans are too stupid to know what's
good for them. As much of the world is jealous of American success and
power, much of today's Democrat power base is resentful of conservatism's
success and power.

Kerry's salvo presents an opening for other Democrats vying for their
party's nomination. Will Joe Lieberman rise to the occasion and stand up
for American sovereignty? Or will he give in to the pressures of the
liberal wing of his party that has more in common with the anti-Americans
abroad than it does with the American voters?

In his State of the Union, President Bush should remind all of us that we
fought for our independence because we believed that God had given us the
inalienable right to create our own destinies. Once we give that up, we
relinquish our own ability to make and enforce our own laws, to protect
our people, to safeguard our liberty. There are countries in Europe and
throughout the former Eastern Soviet bloc who still value these
principles. They deserve our friendship.

[Thanatoast]

wow. is this a profressional that writes this? does she get paid? i hope not. talk about your knee-jerk conservatives.

first off, i happen to be american and also agree with every point that senator kerry makes. that's right. not german, nor french. american. there are still liberals in this country, despite the fact that the conservatives hate that we're here and keep them from doing too much damage.

quote: Their strategy should be obvious by now-advocate a foreign policy that favors international institutions over American power, independence, and old-fashioned common sense.
this is an unfair characterization. i would advocate a policy that favors international institutions *in conjunction* with american power. and old fashioned common sense got us to where we arenow, but is breaking down. we now have a real chance of war, and a foriegn policy that will bring us more terrorist attacks. maybe we should try some new-fashioned common sense.

quote: (Note: the burden is always on the US.)
just like it is in our own court system. imagine that.

quote: Heaven forbid the UN actually enforce its own resolutions.
that the u.s. shoves down its throat.

quote: Both countries are more worried about maintaining their sweetheart business deals with Saddam than stopping weapons proliferation.
b/c saint bush has no ties to business whatsoever and certainly wasn't thinking of them when he decided to invade an oil-rich nation and "hold in trust" its oil fields. let's not have the pot call the kettle black, here.

quote: The more malevolent interpretation is that many of today's Democrats are intent on expanding our reliance on international institutions like the UN because these bodies are inherently more liberal than American voters.
this *is* a malevolent interpretation, specifically designed to grab the attention of kee-jerk conservatives and freak them out. dems may be intent on expanding our relationship w/ int'l institutions, not our reliance on them. that's a plain old stupid statement, made only to scare. and i don't even understand the second half of the sentence. americans can't be liberal on their own? explain plz.

quote: Kerry warns of America's reputation for arrogance. Again, that language could have been lifted straight from last year's Gerhard Schroeder stump speech.
if we're getting it from w/o *and* w/i, maybe we should take a step back and see if there's anything to it, eh?

quote: onerous emission regulations
b/c they would cut into the profits of businesses that line the pockets of millionaires.

quote: agreed that our soldiers be subjected to the whims of an global judicial bureaucracy
b/c we can dish it out, but we can't take it...

quote: On taxes, the environment, and foreign policy, today's liberals are much more aligned with the European elite than they are with American voters.
as i recall, half the country voted "liberal" last presidential election. just b/c they happen to agree w/ europeans does not mean they're unamerican. they're called "liberal americans", and include about half the population of this country. they're not commie european spies sent to destroy our way of life, despite what this ass wants you to think.

quote: Is that still a failure, as Kerry claims, of the Bush Administration?
if we have all this evidence behind us, the law on our side, and we *still* can't convince anyone else we're right, i'd definitely say that's a foriegn policy failure on the part of the administration. talk about not communicating effectively.

quote: A majority of Americans still believe that our borders should be enforced, that individual liberty should trump international bureaucracy, that American independence should always come before concern about offending the "interdependent global community."
does kerry advocate no longer patrolling our borders? must've missed that one. what's the difference between national bureacracy and int'l bureacracy that makes one evil and one okay? and why are we so afraid of acting like we all live on the same planet. and btw, america does not operate in a vacuum. our actions abroad have long-term int'l consequences that should be taken into account. i swear, sometimes it's like trying to keep lemmings from jumping off a cliff...

quote: This means if liberalism is to get off life-support in the US, it will need to do an end-run around American voters as often as possible.
utter bull****. half the nation is liberal. and they vote that way. consrevatives are upset that we're doing an end run around them...by out-voting them!

quote: That's where courts, international institutions, non-governmental organizations (the ACLU, ANSWER, etc.) enter the picture.
you mean our courts? the ones who are elected/appointed by americans? the ones who have found nothing unconstitutional about our current course? and are you reffering to the ngo's that many americans are members of? or the ones that the u.s. has joined by treaty, like the wto? and i can't believe she just dissed the aclu. i have no respect for this lady at all.

quote: Or will he give in to the pressures of the liberal wing of his party that has more in common with the anti-Americans abroad than it does with the American voters?
the liberal wing *consists* of americans, duhh. this means they have *everything* in common with american voters.

quote: we believed that God had given us the
inalienable right to create our own destinies.
if you're so hell-bent against gov't, why not rebel against the feds? they restrict your rights. it's just that you've agreed to allow them, for the good of the whole nation. why can't the nation agree to a few concessions (and i doubt these would invovle throwing the bill of rights out the window) for the good of the whole planet?

this was a weak article at best. you'll have to do better.

[alex_ant]

I agreed with it up until the 3rd sentence of the 8th paragraph...

[Kyle?]

A few things:

G4Scott: Your comments about minorities, while true in some cases, only serve to fuel the race fire just as does characterizations of white people as uncaring, self-benfitting bigots. Try to be constructive when discussing race issues.

Jef: You would vote for a repulican?!?! I thought all republicans were going to hell!! (check the trent lott thread). :) :D :) :D
I agree Condoleeza Rice would be a fantastic candidate (I'm pretty sure I would vote for her, depends if the gop can find a more appealing candidate). However, as you said, it's unlikely that Bush will have any GOP challengers this election cycle, much less his own cabinet members. The action will be among Democrats for sure.

On some mentioned democratic candidates: Sharpton, scab picker, I wouldn't vote for him;
Jackson, race profiteer and hypocrite (what's a reverend doing with an illigitimate (I hate that term) child?), a no vote;
Clinton, I doubt she'll run this term, unless bush is extremely weak, too much of a politician (why'd she decide to run for senate in new york, 'cuz it'd be easiest to get elected there? That's just sad), a no;
Lieberman, maybe(well I wouldn't vote for him,but I wouldn't mind him);
Gore, ha!;
Gephardt, don't know enough about him.
Now if Breaux (I think louisiana) or Miller (GA) were to run, I'd start paying attention. Oh and that Ford fellow from Tenessee (challenged Pelosi for house minority leadership) would be interesting, thought he'd have to work on his polish. He seemed kinda rough, but he raised some good points about democratic leadership recently.

That's all I can think of for now.

[alex_ant]

I would like very much to see Russ Feingold as president soon. Maybe in 2008. He would be fantastic. If not him, then John McCain. In fact, I don't even care who it is as long as he/she has integrity, is not corrupt, and is respectable. Such a figure would provide a wonderful contrast to the current and recent administrations.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Kyle?


Jef: You would vote for a repulican?!?! I thought all republicans were going to hell!! (check the trent lott thread). :) :D :) :D
I agree Condoleeza Rice would be a fantastic candidate

republicans and/or democrats alike who use the goodwill of religious people in order to get votes are not getting brownie points with God...nothing is worse than a spiritual fake, since i prefer the fakes to stay within the field where they prosper...politics:D

i loved the original republican party of goldwater, nixon, and ford with their take care of business policy...somewhere along the line the gop forgot about the economy and decided to be wolves in sheep's clothing in order to get religious votes and transform the religious beliefs of the judeo/christian faith into an all rich, all white club...it's the christian white, folks

why do you think this mixup has caused the KKK and neo nazis to proclaim they are doing the work of christ? it has never been so pronounced before...the marriage of white supremacy and christianity

as a former missionary and as a christian who happens to be a minority, i find this very disturbing

the separation of church and state is key to our american way

at the same time, suspending a kid from school because he said a prayer is crazy and if a teacher wants to teach evolution and creationism, that is ok

i remember one of the best classes i took in high school was a class on asia and we were allowed to look into the religions of asia, too

so it should be fair when studying the history of europe to mention christianity since the good of it in the form of the gospel and the twisting of it for power and gold (like the moderm gop) should be taught as to how it shaped europe along with politics, art, music

and condoleeza, i am glad you like her;)

[mcrain]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
and condoleeza, i am glad you like her;)

I'd consider voting for Condoleeza. Speaking of Bush... a politics v.6 thread? Oh lord, buckle your seatbelts.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by mcrain


I'd consider voting for Condoleeza. Speaking of Bush... a politics v.6 thread? Oh lord, buckle your seatbelts.

i really enjoy your take on the left and backtothemac's take on the right concerning law, taxes, history, and military since those are fields you two excel in...knowledge wise

some of the other posters who don't have the education or experience you two have in those fields, me included, love to toss in our layman theories into the mix...since in the end, assuming we are old enough to vote, have the same power as you two guys when it comes to the polling booth

the great thing about america is that you can be a phd in poli-sci and be voting next to someone who is near illiterate and our system values all opinions

i have seen some crazy points of view here but in some ways, i have been influenced by some of the posts and links from the more conservative side of the political aisle and it has been, and will continue to be great fun

i am glad you are here...i hope backtothemac comes in, too

[wdlove]

We do need opposing point of view to prevent radical ideas from being passed. It's the Liberal that want to do damage to the US, Conservatives are there to prevent this.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by wdlove
We do need opposing point of view to prevent radical ideas from being passed. It's the Liberal that want to do damage to the US, Conservatives are there to prevent this.

the ultra liberals want to make this a socialistic, central government state which is not what our founding fathers intended

or

an internationalist supercop on a short leash who has to pay for everyone else's way and spill the blood of its soldiers for problems abroad

the ultra conservatives want one of two things;

a monarchy who runs state and church...like old england's tories and in line with some of rush limbaugh's more extreme statements on the radio about a super race of rulers helping lord over us poor idiots who don't know how to handle money

or

a fascist state like mussolini or hitler

we don't need the american communist party running the usa

and we also don't need the kkk or david duke running the country, either

so, wdlove, when you say liberal, please clarify that you are talking about extreme liberals who are anti-american extremists and not middle of the road liberals like me who are moderates who see good and bad in both parties and vote the candidate and not the party

[mcrain]

Originally posted by mcrain
... Condoleeza. Speaking of Bush...

Get it? Get it?? :D

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by mcrain


Get it? Get it?? :D

if you mean, is she foxy?

yes, i do believe so but i like her politics since she is truly middle of the road (but so is bush jr and clinton), but condoleeza did work for gary hart who i liked very much

i would have voted for hart but i was left with mondale vs reagan and i stupidly voted for reagan when economic analysts were saying his tricky trickle down would leave us in a recession

nixon and ford got us out of an economic funk during and right after vietnam, so i didn't think reagan would be bad...it was around the mid-80s when i changed my tune and became an independent on the way to eventually becoming a democrat...i follow who has the more solid business strategy for the greatest amount of people

many in my family and many of my friends and clients of my businesses stand to do better with bush, but the majority of america, who i actually don't know, will suffer

i can't vote for friends and family and see everything in a small bubble of people who might have done well in high tech, agriculture, and entrepreneurship (in northern california) and think that the rest of america is like that

the average household income is in the high 20s- 30k a year area so they won't do well under bush at all...when the greatest amount of people can benefit from a president's administration/policies, everybody wins...including the rich

the rich cannot stay that way withou cash flow and the majority of commerce is still from the upper middle class, the middle class, the lower middle class, the working class, and the poor...they buy the products from the companies that the rich class own the majority of stock in

[wdlove]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


the ultra liberals want to make this a socialistic, central government state which is not what our founding fathers intended

or

an internationalist supercop on a short leash who has to pay for everyone else's way and spill the blood of its soldiers for problems abroad

the ultra conservatives want one of two things;

a monarchy who runs state and church...like old england's tories and in line with some of rush limbaugh's more extreme statements on the radio about a super race of rulers helping lord over us poor idiots who don't know how to handle money

or

a fascist state like mussolini or hitler

we don't need the american communist party running the usa

and we also don't need the kkk or david duke running the country, either

so, wdlove, when you say liberal, please clarify that you are talking about extreme liberals who are anti-american extremists and not middle of the road liberals like me who are moderates who see good and bad in both parties and vote the candidate and not the party

The word Liberal refers to the like of Kennedy, Daschle, Clinton, Gephart, & Schummer et al. If your view are not theirs, not referring to you personally.
As I've said, its the radical extreme in both parites that are dangerous. A sosiclaist state or a facist state. A Conservative is not aligned with the like of David Duke, he's a radical!

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by wdlove


The word Liberal refers to the like of Kennedy, Daschle, Clinton, Gephart, & Schummer et al. If your view are not theirs, not referring to you personally.
As I've said, its the radical extreme in both parites that are dangerous. A sosiclaist state or a facist state. A Conservative is not aligned with the like of David Duke, he's a radical!

i get you

so we agree with more than just uno's;) :D :p

oh yeah, same religion, too

could you imagine, uno's in heaven...or at least at the next church get together;)

[alex_ant]

Wdlove, none of the people you mentioned would be considered extreme or "ultra liberal" anywhere in the world but in a few conservative southern states. If you want an example of an "ultra liberal," look at Vladimir Lenin or Karl Marx. On a political ideology scale calibrated to the entire world, even the most liberal Senate member (probably Russ Feingold) would be somewhere around the asterisk:

L----------------*----C---------------------R

Whereas the most conservative Senate member (I'm not sure who it is because there are so many conservative Senate members), would be around here:

L---------------------C-----------------*--R

US politics are dominated by conservatism. Just about anything left-of-center is too liberal for the US, with a few exceptions. Even a lot of moderate conservatism is too liberal for the US. To the average US conservative, anything left of the "C" or within about 3 or 4 dashes to the right of it is what they would call "far left." So I'm not sure what my point is, although I'll bet Sweden must be your idea of Hell on earth.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by alex_ant


US politics are dominated by conservatism

woah, wait a second here...us politics is strongly dominated by the center and the most conservative gop member of any considerable power could have been bob dole in his earlier days

gingrich had to play the center as the speaker

one has to look to nixon-ford to find the truly fiscal traditional conservative that would not be what one would consider a moderate

reagan played the center and tried to grab the christians of the south and midwest who were democrats at the time...his strategy worked in terms of votes and dems going for him

only someone from the far left would see bush jr as a right wing person within his party...the right wing flipped when bush chose rumsfeld, rice, and powell...so to appease the conservative branch of the gop, bush had one lone conservative in his appointment for attorney general

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by alex_ant


US politics are dominated by conservatism

woah, wait a second here...us politics is strongly dominated by the center and the most conservative gop member of any considerable power could have been bob dole in his earlier days

gingrich had to play the center as the speaker

one has to look to nixon-ford to find the truly fiscal traditional conservative that would not be what one would consider a moderate

reagan played the center and tried to grab the christians of the south and midwest who were democrats at the time...his strategy worked in terms of votes and dems going for him

only someone from the far left would see bush jr as a right wing person within his party...the right wing flipped when bush chose rumsfeld, rice, and powell...so to appease the conservative branch of the gop, bush had one lone conservative in his appointment for attorney general, john ashcroft

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
woah, wait a second here...us politics is strongly dominated by the center and the most conservative gop member of any considerable power could have been bob dole in his earlier days
No, my point was that US politics is dominated by the right if you look at US politics in the context of world politics. The US is very conservative compared to the rest of the world. What would be considered centrist here would be considered a good way to the right just about anywhere else.

[Kyle?]

No, my point was that US politics is dominated by the right if you look at US politics in the context of world politics. The US is very conservative compared to the rest of the world. What would be considered centrist here would be considered a good way to the right just about anywhere else.

So?

[alex_ant]

So go read a few posts back to understand what I was saying.

[Kyle?]

Wdlove, none of the people you mentioned would be considered extreme or "ultra liberal" anywhere in the world but in a few conservative southern states. If you want an example of an "ultra liberal," look at Vladimir Lenin or Karl Marx. On a political ideology scale calibrated to the entire world, even the most liberal Senate member (probably Russ Feingold) would be somewhere around the asterisk:

L----------------*----C---------------------R

Whereas the most conservative Senate member (I'm not sure who it is because there are so many conservative Senate members), would be around here:

L---------------------C-----------------*--R

US politics are dominated by conservatism. Just about anything left-of-center is too liberal for the US, with a few exceptions. Even a lot of moderate conservatism is too liberal for the US. To the average US conservative, anything left of the "C" or within about 3 or 4 dashes to the right of it is what they would call "far left." So I'm not sure what my point is, although I'll bet Sweden must be your idea of Hell on earth.

So I went back. And I ask again, so?

[alex_ant]

So the "liberal" senators wdlove mentioned, citing them as far left, are really only so far left if looked at in the context of the conservative US mainstream.

[G4scott]

Ok, before everybody else slams me for making some racial remark, let me tell you that I am hispanic, part of a very large minority (we outnumber whites in this part of the country)

Everything that I hear about jesse jackson is how he wants blacks to be involved in everything. He attacks companies without blacks in the board of directors or other high ranking positions. He believes that because people of his race were once slaves, they are entitled to have everything handed to them on a silver platter. I'm sorry, but this idea just doesn't hold water. If he was truly concerned for african americans, then he would help in poor communities where blacks need help, instead of corporate america, where plenty seem to be doing fine on their own. Jesse jackson is one of those "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" type of people. Many african americans have made themselves successful on their own, with no help from the NAACP or any other organization like that. They work hard like everyone else, and they earn their positions. I do understand that there are still people who look down on blacks and will not even consider them for a job because of their race, even if they are the most qualified. The solution isn't to set up affirmative action laws and require quotas of certain races. They hurt more people than they really help.

I believe that people should be given a job or accecpted to an institution of higher education for their acedemic merit or qualifications to do the job, not because they are of a certain ethnicity. I'm hispanic, and have been accecpted to the University of Texas at Austin, without extra points from being part of a minority.

While no system is perfect, and racism will last forever, I say screw the bastards that are racist. If somebody won't accecpt me for a job because I am hispanic, and i can tell, I'll go get a job for their competitor. Organizations like the NAACP and LULAC are useful for helping dealing with companies like that, but these days, they are going overboard. While they do help minorities fight racism, they also give them a rather unfair advantage.

Everybody should have the same advantage, regardless of their race. Racism is a very contriversial subject, and there is no true proper way to deal with it, but I believe that some steps being taken today are going too far...

[Kyle?]

And why is that a problem? Why should center equal good? Maybe the left is more extreme, maybe the right is more extreme. That's simply not any basis for America to head left (assuming that's what you were implying).

I don't like the linear classification scheme so popular in politics because it just can't explain things very well (my views range all over the scale, but most people would call me a conservative). And no, I don't have any other method of classification; I would rather people discuss issues not conservatism v. liberalism.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Kyle?
And why is that a problem? Why should center equal good? Maybe the left is more extreme, maybe the right is more extreme. That's simply not any basis for America to head left (assuming that's what you were implying).

I don't like the linear classification scheme so popular in politics because it just can't explain things very well (my views range all over the scale, but most people would call me a conservative). And no, I don't have any other method of classification; I would rather people discuss issues not conservatism v. liberalism.
I never said center = good and I didn't imply that America should head left. I made an objective observation that you are free to make of what you will.

(Although I do think America should generally head left. :) )

Classifying political ideology linearly isn't precise, but it's usually a decent approximation since most people's beliefs tend to fall pretty cleanly onto it. I've seen 2D planes that chart the same thing, but with authoritarianism/libertarianism thrown into the mix. Discussing conservatism vs. liberalism is discussing the issues, because that's what conservatives & liberals are: 2 groups of people who agree on their own sets of issues and disagree with each other about these issues.

[Kyle?]

(Although I do think America should generally head left. )


So you do think center is better.:D (you didn't say it, but it was implicit in your posts)

However, I've met enough people who just can't be categorized by left v. right that I feel we won't get a true representation of ideas and views if we simply say it is l-r. With the increasing number of independents around it is important not to group classify people, otherwise you'll generate untrue stereotypes.