Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Now, this is interesting. Elaborate please.
It was an honorOn the otherhand, Moon Palace.
Anyways, Republican Representatives with half a brain are going to distance themselves from Romney's words. ... And then repackage them in a more palatable way.
edited 19th Nov '12 3:48:36 PM by PotatoesRock
@Eku: Pragmatism does not associate itself with sides. The nordic model works. They are doing better then us and their quality of life is better then ours. Therefore their model is worth adopting. Any capitalist who doesn't see that is not a capitalist.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?Yes, but Starship also holds a lot of radical left policies especially when it comes to pollution and corporate responsibility. All of his political positions are liberal or at the very least moderate other than his abortion stance. I think he's just gotten so used to calling himself a conservative that he doesn't realise that the label has no actual relation to his political beliefs.
Calling yourself a fish doesn't make you a fish. You're still human. You're just bad at self labelling. Starship is bad at self labelling.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickI'm not (specifically) arguing for a side. I'm arguing for an economic model that works against someone who agrees, and yet says they espouse the same economic views of a group that directly contrasts against that model.
Yes. That. Exactly that.
Dude, just say you're liberal. We have cookies and you agree with us.
edited 19th Nov '12 3:57:31 PM by Ekuran
![]()
![]()
Precisely.
Also, true capitalists deeply resent people gaming the system, the bizarro Monopoly game I'm talking about.
Withholding proper education, healthcare, and economic opportunity and thus ensuring, to use Fighteer's awesome metaphor, the plucky guy who works a day job but creates the next big thing in his basement and goes on to spectacular wealth doesn't get that chance...
That's an abomination and an offense to true capitalist sentiment.
edited 19th Nov '12 3:58:56 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorShima, I Take Offense to That Last One. (not really)
@Ekuran - I appreciate the invite, and I do like cookies. But actually this proves to me why labels are A Bad Idea.
It was an honorRick Santorum: GOP must reach Latinos
American "Conservatives" are Reactionaries. A conservative distrusts change, and, as a result, seeks to change slowly and cautiously, or, to put it in other words, is conservative with change. A reactionary seeks to turn back the clock, and change the world to how it used to be. A liberal is someone who likes change, and feels like we should be adaptable and able to change quickly, or, to put it in other words, is liberal with change. A radical seeks to radically change everything to create a new system entirely.
The Republican party fits very cleanly into the definition of reactionary. The Democratic party fits very cleanly into the definition of conservative.
edited 19th Nov '12 4:06:58 PM by deathpigeon
In a rational world, politicians like Obama would be labeled conservative for seeking a "balanced approach" to solving problems that consists mainly of relabeled Republican ideas. And that word would be respected rather than the mockery it is today.
From any sane perspective, climate change would be a conservative issue as well as a liberal one. I mean, you don't get much more "status quo" than keeping human beings alive for the next century. We can argue about how to deal with it, to be sure: conservatives could argue for carbon taxes, "cap and trade" systems, higher fuel efficiency standards, and subsidies that incentivize the free market to deal with the problem, while liberals could push for nationalization of key industries and banning petroleum-burning cars.
That the former set of positions are now branded "liberal" is a travesty of reason.
edited 19th Nov '12 4:11:19 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Eh. The way I see it, our right has gone so damned far right that they've stopped being a good goalpost for conservatism. I'd consider myself fiscally conservative under most circumstances, but we've hit a point right now that I like to refer to as "why we can't have nice things".

Repeat that disgraceful slander, and you'll be hearing from my laywers..
@Ekuran - Okay, you're strawmanning and baseless assuming was charming. Now it is becoming grating.
That you, like many people, have a rather narrow Us or Them view of things is a problem with your perception. I'm not going to label myself something just to fit one of your boxes.
And dude, stop saying I'm arguing against welfare. Every time you do, you make yourself seem less and less credible.
edited 19th Nov '12 3:54:58 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honor