Neo Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 I don't think people should even be labelling their political views. Seriously, we shouldn't have categories for such thinngs, nor should we have these 2 parties that most politicians belong to. Dp you know how many independent presidents we have had in history? Zero. (George Washington does not count.) Now we're in a lot of standstills because of petty bickering and nonsense, where group A and group B refuse to get along or compromise. I'm not liberal or libertarian or left or right or anything, I won't classify myself that way. Yes, yes. Ignore the carefully thought out political spectrum in the name of being a hipster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fush Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 I don't think people should even be labelling their political views. Seriously, we shouldn't have categories for such thinngs, nor should we have these 2 parties that most politicians belong to. Dp you know how many independent presidents we have had in history? Zero. (George Washington does not count.) Now we're in a lot of standstills because of petty bickering and nonsense, where group A and group B refuse to get along or compromise. I'm not liberal or libertarian or left or right or anything, I won't classify myself that way. This is implying that everyone would just happily all agree when the politicians aren't grouped; Germany told us otherwise back in the 1920s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chevaleresse Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Yes, yes. Ignore the carefully thought out political spectrum in the name of being a hipster. Carefully thought out? Don't make me laugh. The party system exists as it does now because a bunch of people got together because they wanted some stuff passed in Congress, and then another party formed because they thought the first party was stupid. Party-line politics are toxic as hell at this point, and calling independents/centrists hipsters is moronic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fush Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 But the problem here is that they continue to be corrupt, regardless of whether or not they're in set parties. Neither situation makes a major difference in the overall result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Carefully thought out? Don't make me laugh. The party system exists as it does now because a bunch of people got together because they wanted some stuff passed in Congress, and then another party formed because they thought the first party was stupid. Party-line politics are toxic as hell at this point, and calling independents/centrists hipsters is moronic. Go back and read what I said, son. Political views fall onto a spectrum. When he says "I won't classify myself as left or right", he's outright ignoring that. Homeslice didn't even give any sort of indication of what his views are, so settle down there, cowboy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted User Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 For kicks http://www.isidewith.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chevaleresse Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Go back and read what I said, son. Political views fall onto a spectrum. When he says "I won't classify myself as left or right", he's outright ignoring that. Homeslice didn't even give any sort of indication of what his views are, so settle down there, cowboy. Except the system doesn't work for some people, even if you split it into the authoritarian/libertarian and liberal/conservative axes. I'm socially liberal. . . but I'm only opposed to the death penalty for practical and not moral reasons, for example. Centrism is also a thing. Calling someone a hipster because the one-size-fits-all political classification system didn't work particularly well for them or because they're opposed to partisan politics is not only bad for a debate, it's also rude as hell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluewolf Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 In a perfect society, no, we wouldn't need labels that define or political views and associate us with a certain political party. But is it really that bad if someone says they don't want to be associated with one? I mean, that's just you. Doesn't mean your hipster, it's just your mindset and your alone. :/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jelly Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 in a perfect society communism would be great,,, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted User Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 in a perfect society communism would be great,,, Not at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jelly Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 (edited) in a perfect society, everyone would have food and shelter and racism and sexism and all other forms of oppression would be nonexistent. but because we're all greedy and selfish fuckers, that just wouldnt happen. communism was the proposed solution to try and fix all those problems. but sadly, the world is corrupt and full of shitters who would run that system. Edited October 15, 2014 by JellyMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted User Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Yeah and we'd all be robots. There'd be no individuality, no aspirations, no dreams, and no sense of fulfillment. Why bother living? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jelly Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 im not agreeing with communism. i believe that everyone should try to be their own individual and be free to do whatever they want as long as it doesnt interfere with the rights of others. but the only reason anyone could do that is because we live in a flawed world due to human nature. human nature is the reason why communism will never succeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted User Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Yeah so someone who learns skills to be a doctor or a nuclear physicist should make the same as someone who works at a McDonalds? I'm not putting forth the extra effort to do anything more than I have to, so long as I find it remotely interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jelly Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 i see you are another person who is unable to distinguish between equality and homogeneity,,, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted User Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 No matter how you slice it communism deters innovation extremely. Even in your 'idealistic world'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chevaleresse Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 No matter how you slice it communism deters innovation extremely. Even in your 'idealistic world'. in an ideal world people don't need to be motivated to innovation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted User Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Even so, they won't do it as quickly or as well as they would otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chevaleresse Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Even so, they won't do it as quickly or as well as they would otherwise. you don't seem to be grasping the concept of "ideal" here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted User Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Well then you keep clinging to your fantasy world. Have fun. In an Ideal world, we'd all be lazy and not have to do anything we don't want to. Sorry but if life doesn't have tough times how can you appreciate the good ones? Regardless of this 'ideal' world. The real one will never come close to that. We're more likely to destroy ourselves than coming close to the 'ideal' world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Different people's ideal world is subject to individual opinion though. In Murdoc's world, people won't need motivation for innovation In Jericho's ideal world, people would be lazy and won't have to do anything they don't want to. Ideal worlds are subject to individual opinion, and because of these conflicting ideals, the "ideal" world will never be achieved. This is why they're ideal, imaginative, and not a reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted User Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Unrelated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Down here in Texas, there's a trend. If you're a Republican candidate, you state so by putting the word "Republican" in a larger font than your own name. If you're a Democrat, you don't put your party affiliation on the sign at all. You'd think that means the Dems don't have any real foothold in the state, but that isn't true in the slightest. Austin and San Antonio are about as "liberal" as it gets. Governor Perry was forced to turn himself into an Austin police station to have his mugshot taken for taking action against a Democrat on the State Court whom he felt was "unfit" to keep her post after she had obtained a DUI. You can find plenty of liberals on college campuses, high schools, skate parks, etc, as long as you live somewhere on the interstate and can get to a large city within an hour. Texas has the potential to be a blue state, and the future most likely leads to such an event happening. I don't have a preference either which way, as I am a moderate, but if we were to be a Democrat base, that would be fine. Here's the main reason that unnerves me, however. Whenever a high school senior reaches their government class, they are taught that the Constitution is a "living" document. The terminology is loose, and while to an extent the constitution may be amended the "interpretation" of the articles in it is largely up to the discretion of the government, and is susceptible to change largely based on whatever stance the collective government has at the time. Education ITSELF is determined by the government to an extent. Sometimes, the students aren't being "taught" as much as they are having their interpretations of the Constitution limited. An example of this, for intended purpose only and in no way a popular opinion either way, is a student who is taught by a teacher with a problem with alcoholism about the Prohibition article. The emphasis that you would pick up from the teacher is that this action was taken off of the document for good reason that may be conveyed in an opinion as opposed to being a fact. If the student were to disagree, and say so through an assignment or examination answer, he or she is at risk at getting that question wrong or unnerving the instructor. Indoctrination here in Texas is rampant. Everyone here is instructed to be a friendly people. (Texas "means" friendly) Everyone here is instructed that being straight is the most "normal" of the sexual orientations out there, and not because of statistical reasons. I developed my political views not because of my immediate environment, but because it's my freedom to decide what I feel should be major issues and what is a waste of time and money. When people make the note that spending has DRAMATICALLY increased under the Obama administration, they aren't kidding (and it's not Obama's fault too often either) Bills are piggybacked with additional law that benefits specific areas of the country or the issue at hand in certain areas. "ObamaCare" (as it's not so affectionally known down here), when it didn't pass, was filled with messy drivel that was put there so that politicians can satisfy their constituents. You don't have to look very far or too hard to know that spending has indeed increased. Fiscal Conservatism would largely improve this, but we don't have the conservatives that look attractive enough policy-wise to elect over their opponents. On the other end, Social Liberalism is more ideal for a country like America, and not too many conservatives actually realize that this is the thing that matters to the majority of voters today. Those of us who aren't straight would like the freedom to marry our partners. Those of us who can't make it still want to believe their great nation can help them out (and some actually do don't want to live -OFF- of that help). Those of us that may have a different skin color and yet, still face a noticeable threat of increased police brutality over their light skinned counterparts would like to see total lack of discrimination. As a moderate voter, I feel that having a moderate candidate. A -real- moderate candidate, would be ideal for the executive branch. I feel that the bench in the Supreme Court could be less polarized in political opinion. I feel that the Senate and House would bicker and waste valuable time a whole less if people were not "one or the other" on the floor. I feel that from our President to the government student, in a country that is supposedly prideful in the "freedom" department, "freedom" could be more absolute than it is now, and that everyone can define themselves as an American, rather than a REPUBLICAN!...or empty space on a campaign sign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fush Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 I had my kicks when you guys all took that long to realize that ideals are subjective. Gee, who could've known? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted User Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 I could never bring myself to Vote for Perry. It's fine if someone wants to be religious and all, but too often he lets his religious views dictate his policies. As a whole what would be best for this nation in my opinion would me moderate Fiscal conservatism and Social Liberalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.