The Left's Collapse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rockie Cantais

You misunderstand our government process. Each party represents a section of our population not a form of government. The party is just the mechanics of promoting a set of ideas. The people we vote in are to represent the people and work for the people not the other way around. From our lowest level to the the President they work for the people. They at times seem to forget this.

---

I respectfully disagree. Let's say you have 100 candidates, the people vote in the candidate they feel is most representative of their views. This does not mean that the elected official will or even should pursue policies that the majority of the people want. For example, if the people elect a candidate who, prior to the election had stated his pro-gay marriage stance, that elected official has a duty to uphold the policies that he made clear during his campaign, regardless of whether the majority of the people are anti-gay marriage.

What you are suggesting is that regardless of who is elected to office, they should constantly follow the will of the people. You're suggesting that if the majority of the country is anti-abortion, the president should pass laws to outlaw abortion, regardless of whether he's republican or democrat.

I believe that the election process is designed to choose a candidate whom you believe is intelligent, and will uphold the majority of your values, and be an effective leader. The president is presented with far more information than the average American has access to, and should have a better comprehension of issues than the average American. As such, I believe it is a president's duty to disregard public opinion and do what he believes is the best course for the country, provided he made his stance during election campaigns clear. Honestly, what does the average American know about the delicate balance of fiscal and monetary policies, the complex legal system, socio-economic issues arising out of the aging population etc etc.

Which is to say... You pick a guy, if you like the way he ran things the first 4 years, then you vote him in again. If not, you vote him out. Pretty simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raviy

I respectfully disagree. Let's say you have 100 candidates, the people vote in the candidate they feel is most representative of their views. This does not mean that the elected official will or even should pursue policies that the majority of the people want. For example, if the people elect a candidate who, prior to the election had stated his pro-gay marriage stance, that elected official has a duty to uphold the policies that he made clear during his campaign, regardless of whether the majority of the people are anti-gay marriage.

---

No, I disagree the elected person must uphold the will of the people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raviy

What you are suggesting is that regardless of who is elected to office, they should constantly follow the will of the people. You're suggesting that if the majority of the country is anti-abortion, the president should pass laws to outlaw abortion, regardless of whether he's republican or democrat.

---

Yes, they need to follow the will of the people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raviy

I believe that the election process is designed to choose a candidate whom you believe is intelligent, and will uphold the majority of your values, and be an effective leader. The president is presented with far more information than the average American has access to, and should have a better comprehension of issues than the average American. As such, I believe it is a president's duty to disregard public opinion and do what he believes is the best course for the country, provided he made his stance during election campaigns clear. Honestly, what does the average American know about the delicate balance of fiscal and monetary policies, the complex legal system, socio-economic issues arising out of the aging population etc etc.

---

We know more than we use to and looking at current and past presidents they are less qualified that most Americans. They may have more info but that doesn't make the leader smarted or more competent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raviy

Which is to say... You pick a guy, if you like the way he ran things the first 4 years, then you vote him in again. If not, you vote him out. Pretty simple.

---

Agreed on that part!

That is a very good argument! well done.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...-Portugal.html

Dictators are just another Version of the Left same as Communist and Socialist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuG...eature=related

So in that case if you end up with that the Left Survives!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rockie Cantais

We know more than we use to and looking at current and past presidents they are less qualified that most Americans. They may have more info but that doesn't make the leader smarted or more competent.

---

Well then your idea of democracy is contrary to the idea of the American founders, the idea instilled into the American Constitution.

Further, to your point about recent presidents being less intelligent or competent than the average American... Well... I firstly respectfully disagree. However, even if that is true, then that is a reflection on the people who voted that person into office...
So if you're saying that the majority of Americans vote for a candidate less intelligent than themselves... Well then you're pretty much saying that the majority of Americans are stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rockie Cantais

Dictators are just another Version of the Left same as Communist and Socialist.

---

... What? I'm not sure you read that article properly. You really have to start reading political theory, it doesn't feel like you've grasped the underlying concepts of democracy, communism, socialism, or authoritarianism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raviy

You really have to start reading political theory, it doesn't feel like you've grasped the underlying concepts of democracy, communism, socialism, or authoritarianism.

---

I agree, but you really can't blame him. The typical purveyors of his political viewpoint prefer that people know as little as possible. They throw around buzzwords that are sure to get their people fired up, but none of it is meant to actually inform people. I think this thread has been an excellent demonstration of that...

And before I continue, I must ask the obvious. Was this entire thread really based on a mind-numbingly misinformed editorial in a right-wing rag? Ugh...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rockie Cantais

Bush and Palin are not even the same category, other than they are social conservatives.

---

Agreed. Bush is in the authoritarian camp, and Palin is just plain crazy... Unfortunately, she and a few others have managed to bring together previously scattered elements of our society that we should probably have kept in hiding, or at least we'll find that out in retrospect. I'm fairly confident we will never see a president Palin, though. As much as the teabaggers want to think otherwise, the rest of the country is just not as crazy as them. What's giving them high hopes right now is that teabagger candidates for office are having success in Republican primaries. Since their constituencies pull the extreme elements from the right, if they can convince enough well-meaning but misinformed registered Republicans to join their side, they can win a primary.

What they will find in the general election, however, is that political independents, registered Democrats and non-crazy Republicans outnumber teabaggers by a large margin, and those groups will not vote for an unhinged teabagger... We already have seen evidence of this in a few special elections where a teabagger has gone up against a Democrat. For example, teabagger Doug Hoffman ran off the Republican candidate in the NY-23 election after endorsements from Palin and the like, yet instead of winning an easily winnable district for Republicans, Bill Owens is now the first Democrat to represent NY-23 in over 100 years. You keep talking about November, but I think you will be surprised when America actually goes to the polls. Teabaggers aren't electable, the more they talk, the more that's obvious...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raviy

Now the largest problem with the US system, which for some reason very few Americans realize, is the lack of choice. Now, if forced to choose, I would prefer the Democrats to the Republicans by quite a fair margin, but to be honest, voting in America is like being stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place. "Left" for some reason encompasses government control of the economy and libertarianism, while the "right" encompasses both free market economy and authoritarianism. It completely disregards the level of each the people would like.

That is to say, unless political parties are completely abolished, there can be no democracy. At the very least, political parties need to be limited in size.

---

Yay, someone who gets it! Of course that must mean you're not American... :p Anyway, your depiction of our left and right is spot on, and the situation doesn't make any damn sense to me. I would think that libertarians would have more in common with us progressives, yet those guys usually vote with the Republicans. I think they're brought in by all the small government talk and don't actually realize that Republican presidents, especially the last few, have grown government more than any Democrat could ever get away with.

But all that just goes right back to the first point, keep them as uninformed as possible, and it's right here on display. Obama created $12 trillion in debt, Reagan ended the cold war, Obama is a radical progressive, Obama has a socialist agenda, Bush's wars somehow are "military aid," Europe (the battleground for 2 world wars, among many others) doesn't understand the concept of fighting for its freedom, America has a strong (and by inference, superior) 'moral foundation,' socialism = government control by elites, (that's oligarchy, btw..) Obama is a wimp, (assuming the usual, that he's weak on foreign policy and national security) the media is a leftist/liberal/progressive propaganda machine, everything good since Bush left office is because of Bush, everything bad since Obama took over is Obama's fault, even making the leap that socialism is collapsing Europe as opposed to our parasitic "too big to fail" investment banks meddling in their (ahem, Greece) finances. And that's just in one thread!

You can never convince those who have already made up their minds. I rest my case on the above statements.

The response to that will be lengthy! lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raviy

... What? I'm not sure you read that article properly. You really have to start reading political theory, it doesn't feel like you've grasped the underlying concepts of democracy, communism, socialism, or authoritarianism.

---

Theory suggest that there is more than one. I just don't agree with yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hsihp81

I agree, but you really can't blame him. The typical purveyors of his political viewpoint prefer that people know as little as possible. They throw around buzzwords that are sure to get their people fired up, but none of it is meant to actually inform people. I think this thread has been an excellent demonstration of that...

---

HELLO! I'm right here! RUDE!!!!! lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hsihp81

And before I continue, I must ask the obvious. Was this entire thread really based on a mind-numbingly misinformed editorial in a right-wing rag? Ugh...

---

You see there is a left for without it there is no right!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hsihp81

Agreed. Bush is in the authoritarian camp, and Palin is just plain crazy... Unfortunately, she and a few others have managed to bring together previously scattered elements of our society that we should probably have kept in hiding, or at least we'll find that out in retrospect. I'm fairly confident we will never see a president Palin, though. As much as the teabaggers want to think otherwise, the rest of the country is just not as crazy as them. What's giving them high hopes right now is that teabagger candidates for office are having success in Republican primaries. Since their constituencies pull the extreme elements from the right, if they can convince enough well-meaning but misinformed registered Republicans to join their side, they can win a primary.

---

You really got that that rhetoric down!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hsihp81

What they will find in the general election, however, is that political independents, registered Democrats and non-crazy Republicans outnumber teabaggers by a large margin, and those groups will not vote for an unhinged teabagger... We already have seen evidence of this in a few special elections where a teabagger has gone up against a Democrat. For example, teabagger Doug Hoffman ran off the Republican candidate in the NY-23 election after endorsements from Palin and the like, yet instead of winning an easily winnable district for Republicans, Bill Owens is now the first Democrat to represent NY-23 in over 100 years. You keep talking about November, but I think you will be surprised when America actually goes to the polls. Teabaggers aren't electable, the more they talk, the more that's obvious....

---

See soon enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hsihp81

Yay, someone who gets it! Of course that must mean you're not American... :p Anyway, your depiction of our left and right is spot on, and the situation doesn't make any damn sense to me. I would think that libertarians would have more in common with us progressives, yet those guys usually vote with the Republicans. I think they're brought in by all the small government talk and don't actually realize that Republican presidents, especially the last few, have grown government more than any Democrat could ever get away with.

---

See someone admits to being a progressive and the rhetoric goes on. Just keep in mind you can be a conservative progressive also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hsihp81

But all that just goes right back to the first point, keep them as uninformed as possible, and it's right here on display. Obama created $12 trillion in debt, Reagan ended the cold war, Obama is a radical progressive, Obama has a socialist agenda, Bush's wars somehow are "military aid," Europe (the battleground for 2 world wars, among many others) doesn't understand the concept of fighting for its freedom, America has a strong (and by inference, superior) 'moral foundation,' socialism = government control by elites, (that's oligarchy, btw..) Obama is a wimp, (assuming the usual, that he's weak on foreign policy and national security) the media is a leftist/liberal/progressive propaganda machine, everything good since Bush left office is because of Bush, everything bad since Obama took over is Obama's fault, even making the leap that socialism is collapsing Europe as opposed to our parasitic "too big to fail" investment banks meddling in their (ahem, Greece) finances. And that's just in one thread!

---

You almost have it.

Just when you are thinking the Crazy are wrong about the NEW WORLD ORDER!

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/81a03be0-7...44feabdc0.html

Someone goes off and makes a statement like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rockie Cantais

Theory suggest that there is more than one. I just don't agree with yours.

---

Of course you can disagree with political theories. However, it's difficult to comprehend your argument due to your misuse of the names of many political theories. You may disagree with Communism, but what you're currently purporting to disagree with isn't Communism. I suggested that you read political theory to understand the definitions of these words, because at this point, it's fairly pointless to argue over words that you don't have a concrete understanding of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raviy

Of course you can disagree with political theories. However, it's difficult to comprehend your argument due to your misuse of the names of many political theories. You may disagree with Communism, but what you're currently purporting to disagree with isn't Communism. I suggested that you read political theory to understand the definitions of these words, because at this point, it's fairly pointless to argue over words that you don't have a concrete understanding of.

---

I just reject your ideas and terms. Alien as it may be to you it does not diminish my point or message. We continue on this course laid out in the last century we will continue to get the same result, complete failure.


“In a free and republican government, you cannot restrain the voice of the multitude; every man will speak as he thinks, or more properly without thinking.” George Washington

“I consider the people who constitute a society or a nation as the source of all authority in that nation.” Thomas Jefferson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rockie Cantais

I just reject your ideas and terms. Alien as it may be to you it does not diminish my point or message. We continue on this course laid out in the last century we will continue to get the same result, complete failure.

---

Again, you can't disagree with something you don't understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raviy

Well then your idea of democracy is contrary to the idea of the American founders, the idea instilled into the American Constitution.

---

How so? The Constitution is to limit government, the Bill of Rights was added to ensure that basic rights were understood and to bring in the last of the hold outs so it could be ratified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raviy

Further, to your point about recent presidents being less intelligent or competent than the average American... Well... I firstly respectfully disagree. However, even if that is true, then that is a reflection on the people who voted that person into office...
So if you're saying that the majority of Americans vote for a candidate less intelligent than themselves... Well then you're pretty much saying that the majority of Americans are stupid..

---

In the case of Obama he won with 3 million votes in the populace vote. I wouldn't say Americans were stupid by that but miss lead by Obama's campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raviy

... What? I'm not sure you read that article properly. You really have to start reading political theory, it doesn't feel like you've grasped the underlying concepts of democracy, communism, socialism, or authoritarianism.

---

I understand it but are you looking at the way it should work or the way it works in reailty? I understand and by trying to say I don't means that you have yet to step back and look at the bigger picture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raviy

... What? I'm not sure you read that article properly. You really have to start reading political theory, it doesn't feel like you've grasped the underlying concepts of democracy, communism, socialism, or authoritarianism.

---

So I went back and looked at these and I tell you from my perspective there is not much difference between Communism, Socialism, Authoritarianism, Imperialism. Democracy is rule by the majority and does not necessary protect the rights of the minority. Representative Republic rule by law to ensure only what government is needed to have functional society with maximum freedom for the individual. Free Enterprise and a moral society is needed for the Republic.

Quote:

---

So I went back and looked at these and I tell you from my perspective there is not much difference between Communism, Socialism, Authoritarianism, Imperialism.

---

Well, your perspective is very different from mine, my history/philosophy professors and the books I read that touched the subject matter in some way.

Quote:

---

Democracy is rule by the majority and does not necessary protect the rights of the minority.

---

If a majority (or alternatively, the powerful) decides that it wants something badly enough at the detriment of a minority, NOTHING will protect the rights of that minority.

Story of the world, US included.

Quote:

---

ensure only what government is needed to have functional society with maximum freedom for the individual.

---

And how much government is needed and what it should be focusing on to achieve that is open to a lot of debate.

Quote:

---

Free Enterprise and a moral society is needed for the Republic.

---

Unfortunately for your argument, free enterprise doesn't imply a moral society.

In fact, many individual high in the free enterprise ladder have shown themselves to be individuals of poor moral character.

Thank goodness they are not running for US presidency. I doubt they could widthstand the media scrutiny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rockie Cantais

I get the feeling that the world think all Americans want is to rule the world! lol. Some might, to the tell the truth most of us are sick and tired of getting pulled into other peoples fights all the time. A lot of us don't like or trust government and a World Government makes us sick! Just some other A$$ to tell us what to do! Obama, is an American Citizen but he does not understand its people and is falling flat on his face for it. He would have been a better European leader! LOL. SO, I think we should bring all our troops home and just let the world figure its own problems out! Unless you ask for it no more military aid and even if you ask I think we still should say NO! Enough Americans have died for the worlds freedom, time for you to pay for it or lose it! Unless you fight for it you never understand the feeling for it! This idea is growing!

---

This is as far as I got before I realized this was a joke thread.

Lots of people around the world despise Americans, and the above display of naivety is a great example of why. Do you seriously think that the rest of the world asked you to participate in all those wars? Did anyone come ask you to please go into Iraq? On the contrary, most of the world did not want that to happen unless WMD's were found, and of course they never were. I actually think it's a great thing that Saddam is gone, but I would never be so naive as to believe that you removed him for anything other than self interest. This whole "fighting for freedom" is just bull**** propaganda. The arrogance in thinking your view is right and should be forced upon everybody else is what's making people hate you so much. That you also have no clue about Europe and still use it in your examples all the time just make things worse.

Fighting for the world's freedom? Give me a break. Do you really think the rest of the world can accomplish nothing on their own? Most Europeans are very grateful for the help during the world wars, but again, stop being so naive to believe that the US did it just to be nice. It was in your own self interest to get involved, and it didn't happen until you couldn't refuse. I've got nothing against that behavior at all, it's pragmatic and it makes sense to do what you think is best for your own people. But you really need to get a grip and understand that you're not the messiah helping people out of the goodness of your hearts. The thread starter needs to open his eyes before he tries to flash his political knowledge (which is lacking) and opinions (which are based on narrow mindedness).

No disrespect meant to the US and their armed forces. I'm not a USA hater and am actually grateful for a lot of what you've done. But the kind of arrogance displayed by the thread starter really pisses me off, and let's just say he's not the only one who acts like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rockie Cantais

You can never convince those who have already made up their minds. I rest my case on the above statements.

---

It's always fun when people spew out things that are so obviously much more suited to be used against themselves than others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luc

This is as far as I got before I realized this was a joke thread.

---

NO not really but it is intended to shock you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luc

Lots of people around the world despise Americans, and the above display of naivety is a great example of why. Do you seriously think that the rest of the world asked you to participate in all those wars? Did anyone come ask you to please go into Iraq? On the contrary, most of the world did not want that to happen unless WMD's were found, and of course they never were. I actually think it's a great thing that Saddam is gone, but I would never be so naive as to believe that you removed him for anything other than self interest. This whole "fighting for freedom" is just bull**** propaganda. The arrogance in thinking your view is right and should be forced upon everybody else is what's making people hate you so much. That you also have no clue about Europe and still use it in your examples all the time just make things worse..

---

No they did not ask us and a lot of us Americans think we should just let the world blow itself to hell while we sit back and let you! I could care less if you hate or love us! I think its time we pull our troops out of Europe as we pull out of Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luc

Fighting for the world's freedom? Give me a break. Do you really think the rest of the world can accomplish nothing on their own? Most Europeans are very grateful for the help during the world wars, but again, stop being so naive to believe that the US did it just to be nice. It was in your own self interest to get involved, and it didn't happen until you couldn't refuse. I've got nothing against that behavior at all, it's pragmatic and it makes sense to do what you think is best for your own people. But you really need to get a grip and understand that you're not the messiah helping people out of the goodness of your hearts. The thread starter needs to open his eyes before he tries to flash his political knowledge (which is lacking) and opinions (which are based on narrow mindedness).

---

I see I hit the right button!

Like I said, I think we Americans need pull the majortiy of our troops back home and the let the world have at it! Your right about one thing America First!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luc

No disrespect meant to the US and their armed forces. I'm not a USA hater and am actually grateful for a lot of what you've done. But the kind of arrogance displayed by the thread starter really pisses me off, and let's just say he's not the only one who acts like that.

---

Your too kind!

I make no apology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luc

It's always fun when people spew out things that are so obviously much more suited to be used against themselves than others.

---

Hello, I'm still here!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magn

Well, your perspective is very different from mine, my history/philosophy professors and the books I read that touched the subject matter in some way.



If a majority (or alternatively, the powerful) decides that it wants something badly enough at the detriment of a minority, NOTHING will protect the rights of that minority.

Story of the world, US included.



And how much government is needed and what it should be focusing on to achieve that is open to a lot of debate.



Unfortunately for your argument, free enterprise doesn't imply a moral society.

In fact, many individual high in the free enterprise ladder have shown themselves to be individuals of poor moral character.

Thank goodness they are not running for US presidency. I doubt they could widthstand the media scrutiny.

---

Can't find anything to disagree with you on that one! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rockie Cantais

No they did not ask us and a lot of us Americans think we should just let the world blow itself to hell while we sit back and let you! I could care less if you hate or love us! I think its time we pull our troops out of Europe as we pull out of Iraq.

---

It would actually be fun to watch if you actually did sit back. Fun to see your reaction when your ****ty economy goes from ****ty to catastrophic as you lose control of the oil. You've never been out to save the world, just to keep control of regions where there's something you want, such as oil. Leaving the world be would actually be against your interests, especially now that religion has control of the politics and faith in God is preferred over competence.

Quote:

---

I see I hit the right button!

Like I said, I think we Americans need pull the majortiy of our troops back home and the let the world have at it! Your right about one thing America First!!!

---

And in your naivety you think what your military is doing out in the world is not looking after #1. You'll be terrified when you realize the problems that come with having all the military sitting at home doing nothing, and that you depend as much on the world as it depends on you. Are you aware of how much money China lent you lately? And that money was used to stimulate consumption (of mostly chinese goods, so the money go straight back) and save the retarded banks (there are even socialist countries in Europe who didn't have to do that).

Quote:

---

Your too kind!

I make no apology.

---

Oh, I know. You're just here to make yourself feel better. Ignorance is bliss.

I would love if the left collapesed in Ireland, any sort of remotely right of centre comment here gets you labeled racist or fascist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Safri

I would love if the left collapesed in Ireland, any sort of remotely right of centre comment here gets you labeled racist or fascist

---

I think a big problem with the right in many countries is that its adherents often try to bundle up an economic doctrine with a whole bunch of other non-related beliefs.

If you take the US as an example, if you are on the right, you must support governement deregulation of the economy AND be against abortion AND be again gay marriage AND be pro gun rights AND support various foreign wars.

This is because they tend to have a main right-wing party that bundles all those independant ideologies together in a single package.

Conservatives in my country are experiencing a similar issue with regard to conservatism and the right-left political spectrum. In essence, our conservative party merged with a right-wing party and now they bundled the conservative economic policies with the right-wing agenda together (which upsets my father to no end as he is a conservative and a moderate... he essentially doesn't have a party to vote for now and tend to support independants).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rockie Cantais

You see there is a left for without it there is no right!

---

A-ha, so you agree with me that the initial premise is ridiculous.

I'm suprised the topic is still going; though, it seems that almost all of the posts are off-topic.

It really comes down how you define Left and Right. I learned long ago that not everyone will agree on how it is defined. He who controls the language controls the argument and that is all we have been discussing here is the language. From what I have read here most of you have no real understanding of America's Left and Right, neither do some Americans.

Is the Left collapsing? I doubt it much like the Liberals, Progressives, Socialist here in the USA were calling 2008 the collapse of the Right 2 years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rockie Cantais

It really comes down how you define Left and Right. I learned long ago that not everyone will agree on how it is defined. He who controls the language controls the argument and that is all we have been discussing here is the language. From what I have read here most of you have no real understanding of America's Left and Right, neither do some Americans.

Is the Left collapsing? I doubt it much like the Liberals, Progressives, Socialist here in the USA were calling 2008 the collapse of the Right 2 years ago.

---

You can't just talk about America's idea of what is Left (assuming Americans have an unified definition for it, I seriously doubt that), when you talk about the 'Left'.

You are talking to an international audience.

Be mindful of context.

Vocabulary becomes and issue mainly when people insist on arguing about generic things using lousely defined words (something of which I am guilty myself on occasion).

Perhaps that by limiting the scope of the discussions, a more intelligent debate might follow.

That is a very good point I do forget that there is an international audience here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rockie Cantais

It really comes down how you define Left and Right. I learned long ago that not everyone will agree on how it is defined. He who controls the language controls the argument and that is all we have been discussing here is the language. From what I have read here most of you have no real understanding of America's Left and Right, neither do some Americans.

Is the Left collapsing? I doubt it much like the Liberals, Progressives, Socialist here in the USA were calling 2008 the collapse of the Right 2 years ago.

---

The right is collapsing in the US. That why you have the emergence of the Tea Party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fates Warning

The right is collapsing in the US. That why you have the emergence of the Tea Party.

---

LOL, Much like the 2008 election of Barrack Obama and the Take over of the government by the Democrats was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX7xjAs1UuA

Mid-term's elections in America is in a few weeks and the Democrat are going to lose. The real question is how bad will they lose? They will lose 40+ seat in the House maybe even more up to 55 at least. I have heard up to 90-100 seats lost. The Senate they lose 5-9 seats maybe more. I have heard up to 12 seats lost. Nov. 2 election and America will change its course again. Will Hillary run against Obama for the Demarcate nomination for 2012? Who will run for the Republicans in 2012 and the Tea Party are getting rid of the RINO's. (Republicans In Name Only).

So while I know not what is happening in your country here the Left is collapsing to a degree. Wouldn't call it a total collapse by any mean of the imagination yet.

Quote:

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX7xjAs1UuA

---

I like the 0:25-0:28 part. Its fittingly ironic since its essentially what he's doing: substituting political substrance for showmanship.

Quote:

---

Will Hillary run against Obama for the Demarcate nomination for 2012? Who will run for the Republicans in 2012 and the Tea Party are getting rid of the RINO's. (Republicans In Name Only).

---

Thats the spirit. Flush out the moderates in the party. They aren't quite right-wing enough anyways.

Its all about the far right vs the far left and everyone's gotta pick a side right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magn

I like the 0:25-0:28 part. Its fittingly ironic since its essentially what he's doing: substituting political substrance for showmanship.

---

Its a music video to inspire!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magn

Thats the spirit. Flush out the moderates in the party. They aren't quite right-wing enough anyways.

Its all about the far right vs the far left and everyone's gotta pick a side right?

---

What is a moderate? someone who has yet to make up his/her mind on where they stand. What is left and Right? Depends on the person own perspective because some don't even recognize there is a Right and Left. No matter where you stand as an individual everyone else will be either right or left of you. So the majority of us in the Republican Party/Tea Party have decide to say we stand here and you can stand with us or to the left or right of us. The Republican Party Leadership is now standing Left of the Tea Party and will be given one last chance to join us. The ball is in their court and they can decide. We have no problem with forming a New Party for we have not left them they have left us. The Democrats are so Far Left we all wonder if they have gone off the deep end. So it may appear to outsiders we are either one extreme or another but we are deciding the future of our country and in this political struggle there can be no fence sitters. Its not like we haven't done this before but the years between 2010 and 2012 will be the most interesting.

1. Your democrats are only "Left" in your own country. They'd be at most a center party in lots of other countries.
2. The so called Tea Party really hasn't done much to improve the reputation of the US. Most of the people I know thought it was a joke party when they first heard of it (not referring to the name).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luc

1. Your democrats are only "Left" in your own country. They'd be at most a center party in lots of other countries.
2. The so called Tea Party really hasn't done much to improve the reputation of the US. Most of the people I know thought it was a joke party when they first heard of it (not referring to the name).

---

Must not be paying attention to what the Democrats have been doing lately then. I would agree with #1 if we were talking about the old Dem's.

Maybe one should do their own research on the Tea Party? I mean why trust the state run media outlets that only gives the government side of things? Regardless of who is in power its better to trust original sources. You may find it to your liking or not if you like Tyrants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rockie Cantais

What is a moderate? someone who has yet to make up his/her mind on where they stand. What is left and Right? Depends on the person own perspective because some don't even recognize there is a Right and Left. No matter where you stand as an individual everyone else will be either right or left of you. So the majority of us in the Republican Party/Tea Party have decide to say we stand here and you can stand with us or to the left or right of us. The Republican Party Leadership is now standing Left of the Tea Party and will be given one last chance to join us. The ball is in their court and they can decide. We have no problem with forming a New Party for we have not left them they have left us. The Democrats are so Far Left we all wonder if they have gone off the deep end. So it may appear to outsiders we are either one extreme or another but we are deciding the future of our country and in this political struggle there can be no fence sitters. Its not like we haven't done this before but the years between 2010 and 2012 will be the most interesting.

---

If someone commits murder, the two polar opposites is to let the man go free, or to execute him. So by being in favour of imprisonment of some duration, you're saying I haven't made up my mind?

The Tea Party isn't a real political party. I hope you realise that. "Tea Party" candidates run in Republican primaries. It's a faction of the Republican Party who are.... in favour of Republican values. I can find very little inherently different between the "Tea Party" and the rest of the Republican Party.

The fact is that the two-party system is inherently flawed. The ability of the Republicans to maintain a united stance increasingly polarises the conversation, which in turn leads to the craziest voices being the most powerful. What with the Republicans and Democrats calling each other Communists, Socialists, Fascists, etc etc etc. Not to mention that capitalism renders media ineffective in reporting the actual situation, as it means that media organisations have preference towards sensationalism, further polarising the country.

The fact that you, Rockie Cantais, refer to the entirety of the Democratic Party, a party in which the majority of registered voters in the US identifies with, as tyrants, is a reflection of that polarisation.

That polarisation means that no important issues can be effectively dealt with, such as the inherent corruption in your government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cero

If someone commits murder, the two polar opposites is to let the man go free, or to execute him. So by being in favour of imprisonment of some duration, you're saying I haven't made up my mind?

---

NO,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cero

The Tea Party isn't a real political party. I hope you realise that. "Tea Party" candidates run in Republican primaries. It's a faction of the Republican Party who are.... in favour of Republican values. I can find very little inherently different between the "Tea Party" and the rest of the Republican Party.

---

Duh!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cero

The fact is that the two-party system is inherently flawed. The ability of the Republicans to maintain a united stance increasingly polarises the conversation, which in turn leads to the craziest voices being the most powerful. What with the Republicans and Democrats calling each other Communists, Socialists, Fascists, etc etc etc. Not to mention that capitalism renders media ineffective in reporting the actual situation, as it means that media organisations have preference towards sensationalism, further polarising the country.

---

What do you prefer, Total government control? Democrats are not bad people nor are the Republicans . The Blue Blood Elites, Belt Way Boys or whatever you want of both parties are the real problem and yes some are Marxist, Socialist, Communist, Fascist or whatever big Government name you want to give them. Capitalism the form of commerce we have is not a form of government. Take that back its a hybrid of Capitalism/socialism for the last 100 years, D#$% Progressive people. Nothing wrong with making a buck and having everyone moving up at the same time. Depends on which media outlet you watch. Don't tell me its NBC, CNN or those far left New Papers. Still lets them have their say, its fun listen to their crazy rants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cero

The fact that you, Rockie Cantais, refer to the entirety of the Democratic Party, a party in which the majority of registered voters in the US identifies with, as tyrants, is a reflection of that polarisation.

---

Hey! you use my name! Cero. Just the Leadership and I wouldn't say its the majority at all just about 30% of the population. Independents Rule!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cero

That polarisation means that no important issues can be effectively dealt with, such as the inherent corruption in your government.

---

It also means they can't screw it up anymore than they have! Its all in motion and goes in cycles.

Bottom Line: We Americans don't like to be told what to do even by our own government. Watch this Tuesday and see what I mean.

If you think that Hollywood and the media is a reflection of America you are wrong!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rockie Cantais

LOL, Much like the 2008 election of Barrack Obama and the Take over of the government by the Democrats was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX7xjAs1UuA

---

Uh, you did nothing to respond to the actual post. The Tea Party is a fracturing of the Republican Party. The Tea Party is trying to distance themselves from the Republican name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rockie Cantais

What is a moderate? someone who has yet to make up his/her mind on where they stand.

---

You don't know what a moderate is yet you speak like you know the working of US politics? Really?

Quote:

---

So the majority of us in the Republican Party/Tea Party have decide to say we stand here and you can stand with us or to the left or right of us. The Republican Party Leadership is now standing Left of the Tea Party and will be given one last chance to join us. The ball is in their court and they can decide. We have no problem with forming a New Party for we have not left them they have left us.

---

Your a Tea bagger? OMG.... end of conversation when Sarah Palin/ Christine O'Donnell is the poster girl for your new party. And no, the Tea Party left the Republican party. Spin it all you want like the Tea Party always does. lol

Quote:

---

The Democrats are so Far Left we all wonder if they have gone off the deep end. So it may appear to outsiders we are either one extreme or another but we are deciding the future of our country and in this political struggle there can be no fence sitters. Its not like we haven't done this before but the years between 2010 and 2012 will be the most interesting.

---

Democrats are so far left how? You make claims with no statements or facts to back them up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rockie Cantais

Depends on which media outlet you watch. Don't tell me its NBC, CNN or those far left New Papers. Still lets them have their say, its fun listen to their crazy rants.

---

Funny how you didn't include Fox news in that list. Let me show you something that shows the intelligence level of those that watch Fox News. And mind you this is just a start....

A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA),[49] in the Winter 03-04 issue of Political Science Quarterly, reported that viewers of Fox News, the Fox Broadcasting Company, and local Fox affiliates were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three misperceptions:[50]

* 67% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for NPR/PBS).

* The belief that "The U.S. has found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq" was held by 33% of Fox viewers and only 23% of CBS viewers, 19% for ABC, 20% for NBC, 20% for CNN and 11% for NPR/PBS

* 35% of Fox viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favor the U.S. having gone to war" with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for NPR/PBS)

Quote:

---

Bottom Line: We Americans don't like to be told what to do even by our own government. Watch this Tuesday and see what I mean.

---

That's a silly statement. Your just going to get another group of people telling you what you can and can not do.

I would say your stats on Foxx and the other networks looks a lot like the Stats of Conservatives & Moderates Vs Liberals in America. Plus the other networks are starting to fail because we just don't trust them. WE the PEOPLE rule here! Not the ones we vote in and tonight we are reminding them of that.