OT: Politics and other stuff that is sure to piss everyone off

[ACC_HOKIES]

I find that most people who claim to be libertarian have no idea what that means, but who knows.....

Rep!

"Libertarian" seems to be the trendy political ID these days. I'm afraid the misconceptions will unfortunately lead to even more misconceptions and demonization of the term, much like "liberal" and "conservative" are demonized now. Even worse, it seems many people believe that the two parties represent a solely liberal party versus a solely conservative party, when in reality both parties (and several small parties) are mixtures of many different ideologies and individuals. Politics is a complex beast, indeed.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

Rep!

"Libertarian" seems to be the trendy political ID these days. I'm afraid the misconceptions will unfortunately lead to even more misconceptions and demonization of the term, much like "liberal" and "conservative" are demonized now. Even worse, it seems many people believe that the two parties represent a solely liberal party versus a solely conservative party, when in reality both parties (and several small parties) are mixtures of many different ideologies and individuals. Politics is a complex beast, indeed.

I agree completely. If you really look into the origin of the "liberal" philosophy, or the "conservative" philosophy, you will find that both can apply equally, and contend against, equally, the two major parties today. In addition, within each party, there is a huge spectrum of thought. A Virginia conservative is much different than a New Hampshire conservative, for example.

I guess that if I had to label myself I would call myself a classic liberal in the James Madison/James Monroe sense, but that makes me more of a fiscal conservative today. Still, i am not lock step with that philosophy either. The world has changed. Isolationism, for example, is really no longer a viable option. I have voted for both parties in the past. I feel pretty disconnected with both parties now, as well.

I never understood people who self-ientify with a party. People should develop their own beliefs on each issue and those views should be open to change as their experience and education evolves. For example, I am all for gay marriage and adoption, but I am also against gun control. No party likes me, really, but none abhor me either.

The two party system sucks but thus far the only third parties have gone to the fringe of the two, when we really need a fresh new mindset that has adapted to the current world situation. I hope it happens one day, but who knows.

As far as libertarian, yeah, it is a hip new word for young conservatives it seems. They seem to not understand what it means and are usually in sharp contrast to many of their beliefs.

(rant over)

 

[Hokie200proof]

"Liberal" and "conservative" are not politic ideologies, codes... They are buzz words that have caught on with opinion news talking heads that help generalize people or topics in order to simplify and exaggerate differences of opinions.

Now liberal republican, fiscal conservative, social conservative are used instead of actually talking about voting records, ideals and proposed plans for legislation. The opinion news machine (from the Daily Show to Glen Beck) is more than happy to use these terms because they can generalize a group of people in order to discount their ews through strawman arguments and logical hyperbole.

Sadly, it's highly effective with most of our logic illiterate populous.

I also find the use of "Libertarian" by both parties comical as well. A true liberitarian would oppose all guns laws, approve of (or at least not object to) gay marriage and would support legalization of all drugs. All of these are freedoms limited by our current government. Please find me a Tea Party member who votes like that.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

"Liberal" and "conservative" are not politic ideologies, codes... They are buzz words that have caught on with opinion news talking heads that help generalize people or topics in order to simplify and exaggerate differences of opinions.

Now liberal republican, fiscal conservative, social conservative are used instead of actually talking about voting records, ideals and proposed plans for legislation. The opinion news machine (from the Daily Show to Glen Beck) is more than happy to use these terms because they can generalize a group of people in order to discount their ews through strawman arguments and logical hyperbole.

Sadly, it's highly effective with most of our logic illiterate populous.

I also find the use of "Libertarian" by both parties comical as well. A true liberitarian would oppose all guns laws, approve of (or at least not object to) gay marriage and would support legalization of all drugs. All of these are freedoms limited by our current government. Please find me a Tea Party member who votes like that.

As well as being a strict isolationist, really, if you think about it.

We have had this discussion before though and disagree on a ton of shit but at least respect the independence of each others opinions.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

One more little rant:

It has become a political sin to change your mind. I, for one, appreciate a politician that is open to changing their stance on something as long as it is for the right reasons. A lot of people feel one way until they get all of the detailed info. President Obama had a different view on the war on terror while he was running for office. Then he got into office, got all of the intel and went in a different direction. he will be crucified for this during the election by both sides, but I for one, understand and appreciate his willingness to change his mind.

We all do not know a lot of things, and if we knew, we may see things differently as well.

People who change their views for political expediency annoy me, but people who's ideas evolve as situations change and successes/failures mount up are fine with me.

 

[MattB4VT]

sparko: always "has better shit to do"... always write essays on message boards in reply to a meaningless joke about new mexico. no life.

and for libertarianism being "trendy" idk anyone else personally who identifies as one. its issues like free market economy and free market healthcare, being against government interference, and against taxes/high government spending. some of these align with conservative views, but i am more libertarian than conservative.

 

[Hokie200proof]

What kills me about American politics today is the fact that money can win elections. Bloomberg buying a mayoral election, Romney getting blasted (in such a delicious bit of irony) by his own party for raising so much campaign money that the primaries were considered almost unfair, Obama raising BILLIONS for his 2008 campaign.

Why does this work? Because, for the most part, our voting public is misinformed/uninformed, apathetic and ignorant. YOU SHOULDN'T VOTE FOR SOMEONE BECAUSE YOU LIKE THEIR LOGO, THEIR LOOK, THEIR CAMPAIGN ADS, THEIR NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN ADS, BECAUSE YOU RECOGNIZE THEIR NAME, BECAUSE THEY'RE SAID TO BE WINNING IN THE POLLS...

You should vote with the assumption that your choice, if elected, will govern the way you believe the country should be governed. How do you arrive at this decision? By doing you're own GD research and not swallowing the carefully crafted message prepared by a team of expensive marketers who only care about getting their version of vanilla elected (our candidate has exactly the same views as his opponent, voted the same way... but... his hair is exactly what you'd expect from an elected official and he own a dog, VOTE FOR VANILLA VERSION A). All real discourse has taken a back seat to clever, money-fueled campaigns that rely on every subtle psychological exploit to trick as many voters into identifying with one candidate over another. Actually do your own research and NO ONE could ever "buy" an election.






But that will never happen, who the fuck am I kidding.





And New Mexico sucks.

 

[sparko]

rep to both of you .. and I couldn't agree more .. libertarian and tea party .. just buzz words to most people ..

i'm more of a social liberal and fiscal conservative ... and i feel very much out of the loop with both parties ... and am forced to usually vote for the lesser of two evils

as far as the statement ...
"when in reality both parties (and several small parties) are mixtures of many different ideologies and individuals" ... i agree -- but unfortunately, the big-wig lobby firms and fat-cat-campaign-contributors care about ONE thing ... typically the non-compromising extremist view of an issue .. and the sum-total of all of those fat-cats equals an extreme Democrat and Republican party -- at least those in power

too many people in this country who only give a shit about what they think -- no regard to anyone else's opinion .. everyone is so opinionated about MEANINGLESS SHIT (like Michelle Obama giving a commencement speech) ... gay marriage being another (who cares really if gay people marry) that they can't focus on what's really important, TRY to support our representatives and push them towards being able to compromise ... it's no wonder nothing gets accomplished .. we push our politicians to extremes

 

[MattB4VT]

200 Proof.... that is exactly MF right. a VAST majority of voters dont know anything about the candidates. tests should have to be taken and passed in order to vote. its a sad concept, but our democratic process has become so watered down by people who have no clue how to use their political "voice".

and New Mexico sucks.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

I also hate the movement toward the demonization of the "other guys".

The other party really does not want to destroy life liberty and the American way. They have the same goals as you do. They simply have a different idea as to how to achieve it. You may disagree entirely, but people need to start to see the "other side" as political opposition, not demonic monsters.

Bush was not a terrorist
Obama is not a socialist.

They both wanted what was best for the US, and in their own minds were doing what they could to achieve these goals.

 

[MattB4VT]

the government has gotten out of control with spending, and we are a much weaker country because of it. the dollar is weaker, we are owned by china and japan, and our economy is floundering. we even lost our AAA credit rating for the first time in history because we are in such shambles. this may have since been restored, im not sure, but either way, thats awful. we also need someone who has a sense of American exceptionalism, and not be parading around the world apologizing for America. It weakens us, both domesticly and abroad.

 

[MattB4VT]

and since you guys are going to assume I'm only talking about barack hussein, GWB spent a lot too. though, barack hussein has done so in ridiculous amounts that accomplished nothing; well nothing positive anyways.

 

[Hokie200proof]

too many people in this country who only give a shit about what they think -- no regard to anyone else's opinion .. everyone is so opinionated about MEANINGLESS SHIT (like Michelle Obama giving a commencement speech) ... gay marriage being another (who cares really if gay people marry) that they can't focus on what's really important, TRY to support our representatives and push them towards being able to compromise ... it's no wonder nothing gets accomplished .. we push our politicians to extremes

Which is an undeniable and frightening trend. A political stalemate (which the media, PACs, lobbyists and our apathetic public has helped craft by polarizing and dividing even the most simple issues) only serves those who currently have power and who are currently benefiting. I don't think there is anyone here or in this country that thinks that EVERYTHING is perfect today. There always needs to be change, adjustment, adaptation.

With a manufactured separation of the political parties, further polarized by media outlets (who are primarily funded by the exact same capital sources, benefactors), those who benefit the most from the current system have created a country where expressing one's opinion opens you up to be ridiculed, classified, generalized and dismissed. IF THERE IS NO DISCOURSE THERE CAN BE NO COMMON GROUND. WITH NO COMMON GROUND THERE CAN BE NO PROGRESS. We're left with two sides VEHEMENTLY and passionately talking completely past each other.

A perfect scenario if you're reaping all of the benefits today.

 

[MattB4VT]

200 Proof: SPOT ON. but what do we do to change the system?
no one who actually would help the country will ever get elected again. RIP Reagan.

 

[MattB4VT]

barack hussein and the liberal media press this class warfare issue so strongly, that it has made it even worse. has made it such a crime to be successful.

 

[Hokie200proof]

Matt. At the risk of getting un-rep'ed, I will say I respect your opinion, but I would argue that the Presidency, in America at least, really doesn't matter outside of foreign relations, trade and the very early stages of military operations. I would argue that the President almost CERTAINLY doesn't matter in terms of expanding/retracting the size of government.

Maybe I'm mistaken, and I'll welcome a correction, but the Executive Branch can only sign or veto a budget that Congress has created. This would suggest that the President is only to blame for expanding government when he approves a budget already debated and approved by Congress (that received less than 2/3rds Congressional approval).

For a long time we've been hearing a lot of rhetoric and objection to "Big Government" from both of the major political parties, many times blamed on the president that is currently in power. But what spending does the Executive branch actually authorize/govern? It has always been my understanding that Congress approves, administers and governs the U.S. Government's Budget and the Executive Branch merely submits a recommendation (commonly referred to as the "President's Budget") and then waits to either veto or sign a budget that Congress has debated, rewritten and approved within themselves. Because of this, the Executive Branch cannot write, vote or enact laws to increase or decrease government spending. Congress is to blame for big increases in budget.

Of course, when the President approves a budget (or a stimulus package, or special spending bill) he can be held accountable, but even then, he's putting his name to something that majority of 400 lawmakers have already approved. I don't have the voting records in front of me, but I'll start doing some research on it, but I don't think this current administration has been on the hook for much of anything as we've been passing Continuing Resolutions to avoid complete Government shutdowns as a new budget has been delayed indefinitely due to a political stalemate in Congress.

I'll try to find some facts and present them when I have them.

 

[ACC_HOKIES]

200 Proof.... that is exactly MF right. a VAST majority of voters dont know anything about the candidates. tests should have to be taken and passed in order to vote. its a sad concept, but our democratic process has become so watered down by people who have no clue how to use their political "voice".

and New Mexico sucks.

200 Proof: SPOT ON. but what do we do to change the system?
no one who actually would help the country will ever get elected again. RIP Reagan.

Maybe we can start by more effectively using our political voice in an equal and open forum to factually express our political philosophies in lieu of regurgitated hyperbole?

barack hussein and the liberal media press this class warfare issue so strongly, that it has made it even worse. has made it such a crime to be successful.

 

[Hokie200proof]

barack hussein and the liberal media press this class warfare issue so strongly, that it has made it even worse. has made it such a crime to be successful.

I'd say that this cuts both ways. I would wager a good number of those who showed up at Glen Beck's rally are actually using (and some are dependent) "Big Government" programs, but are unawares. Many forms of workman's comp, disability, certainly Medicare/Medicade, are, at least in part, government funded or guaranteed. I work in agriculture and I can tell you that many farmers I work with utilize (and sometimes abuse) government funded programs throughout the Farm Bill, whether it be direct payments, crop insurance or guaranteed loans. The same folks are staunch supporters of the Tea Party and other groups that lambast "Big Government" spending.

I'll try to get some research linked to these claims.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

Calling the president "Barack Husssein" in and of itself perpetuates the separation, Matt....

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

As H200 mentioned. There is no such thing as discourse anymore. Watch some of the debates from the 1970s and 1980s, and compare them to the talking point, vhildish, name calling in the most recent elections.

Watch some episodes of "Firing Line", which you can find on Youtube and compare them to Bill Maher or Sean Hannity shows. The former disagreed vehemently but forwarded the discussion and were respectful of each other and the audience. The latter dumb it down, name call and disrespect our ability to think critically by pandering.