NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Go to the 2004 primaries chart. Kerry is (strangely enough) plotted as a moderate conservative

Yep, thats because American Politics = Nationalist Right.

Look at John Edwards!

Political Compass is no better, perhaps worse, than other political tests on the internet.

Well, we're all a little right compared to the rest of the world. But hey, all of the Democrats are still farther left than Bush.

It's a totally inaccurate website. I tried it, and I wasn't nearly as far to the right on the scale as I should have been.

Well, we're all a little right compared to the rest of the world. But hey, all of the Democrats are still farther left than Bush.

A 'little' farther right?

More like 'ultra-right' in the eyes of most Europeans, the neglection of the squalor in your country astounds us.

It's a totally inaccurate website. I tried it, and I wasn't nearly as far to the right on the scale as I should have been.
Or maybe you are more to the left then you realize.

A 'little' farther right?

More like 'ultra-right' in the eyes of most Europeans, the neglection of the squalor in your country astounds us.
What astounds us is how some of the self-proclaimed liberals can be so euro-centric. American Democrats - and even Republicans, albiet not in as many as the Democrats - would be considered left-wing or even far-left in many countries around the world, particularly in Asia, Africa, and South America.

A 'little' farther right?

More like 'ultra-right' in the eyes of most Europeans, the neglection of the squalor in your country astounds us.
And Germany in particular is a far leftist state, although Greece and Italy are fairly socialist. I don't see any right-wing politicians there. Oh, and I almost forgot: Scandanavia is extremely socialist, with almost no right wing opposition. It's a two way street, chump.

Its kinda inaccurate, but offical records say hes the most liberal senator in the senate.

Its kinda inaccurate, but offical records say hes the most liberal senator in the senate.

Alan Stang described Kerry as "the only senator who makes Ted Kennedy look like Strom Thurmond."

Alan Stang described Kerry as "the only senator who makes Ted Kennedy look like Strom Thurmond."
He seems like a liberal kinda guy. That's why he's set himself up as a waffler. He was fairly consistent in the Senate, but on the campaign trail, he did the famous jiggy to the center that most politicians due during campaigns.

What do you expect? There aren't any truly radical politicians. Certainly not anymore.

Woohoo! Go Al 'Big Daddy' Sharpton! :D

The U.S. wouldn't know what to do with a leftist if one fell into its lap.

And Germany in particular is a far leftist state, although Greece and Italy are fairly socialist. I don't see any right-wing politicians there. Oh, and I almost forgot: Scandanavia is extremely socialist, with almost no right wing opposition. It's a two way street, chump.

Again, you misunderstood the point. Compared to the rest of the developed World - America's political spectrum is very far right, why this should be disputed so much when people see it for themselves on PoliticalCompass astounds me, maybe Americans don't want to wake up to the truth that thier so called 'Liberals' are the equivalent of Right Wing Conservatives the World over.

Again, you misunderstood the point. Compared to the rest of the developed World - America's political spectrum is very far right, why this should be disputed so much when people see it for themselves on PoliticalCompass astounds me, maybe Americans don't want to wake up to the truth that thier so called 'Liberals' are the equivalent of Right Wing Conservatives the World over.
However, some nation's farthest right mainstream party is considered left of center in the rest of the world. It does work both ways. And America shouldn't be ashamed of being a little more to the right. We're happy that way.

However, some nation's farthest right mainstream party is considered left of center in the rest of the world. It does work both ways. And America shouldn't be ashamed of being a little more to the right. We're happy that way.

We are??! Speak for yourself, but I'd be happy to see a better mix of the political spectrum in the U.S. and a little bit of European liberalism in U.S. society.

And Germany in particular is a far leftist state, although Greece and Italy are fairly socialist. I don't see any right-wing politicians there. Oh, and I almost forgot: Scandanavia is extremely socialist, with almost no right wing opposition. It's a two way street, chump.
Well, according to politicalcompass.org Schröder is slightly right to the centre. Anyway: socialists was Lafontaine (finance minister from 1998-99) who had to go pretty soon. The government is pretty centrists in the economic field. For example I wouldn´t call a tax reform from 25,9% to 53% down to 15%-42% income tax as a step towards socialism. Though that of course was negotiated with parts of the opposition. The original concept of the government was (15%-45,5%).
Anyway: your not-knowledge about right-wing German politicans may be due to the fact that you are of course not following German politics. That is OK. We are after all a small country in central Europe. But then you shouldn´t make such statements. Just say that you don´t know.
Shall I give you a few names: Stoiber (candidate in 2002), Koch, Merkel (chair woman of the CDU, speaker of the CDU/CSU in the Bundestag, likely chancellor candidate of the opposition in 2006).
By the way. The opposition controlls the second chamber the Bundesrat.
It may even get worse for them if they are going to face a two-third majority in the second chamber (Bundesrat) against them next year. The second chamber needs to approve laws affecting the state and changes of the constituition (about half of the laws). It can veto other laws (like budget laws, social laws, e.g.). However this veto can be voted out by the first chamber (Bundestag) with the absolute majority of its members (which is held by the government). Though if the veto is casted by two thirds of the votes in the Bundesrat it can only be overvoted by two-thirds of the votes in the Bundestag. And of course the current government doesn´t have that, hehehe. It is not unusal that the opposition holds the majority in the second chamber. But it would be the first time in the 55 years history of the Federal Republic of Germany that it would held a two-third majority. And it looks very likely that the opposition is going to win the state elections in North-Rhein-Westpfalia and Schleswig-Holstein next year.
Currently the conservatives are ruling 9 of the the 16 states (together with the liberals or alone) while the SPD rules only 7 (though two with the conservatives as coalition partner). And it looks like they are losing another two next years (as mentioned). So, I can´t see a left dominance actually.
The left only ruled between 1969-82 and since 1998. So that is the shorter period in the 55 year history of the Federal Repbublic of Germany.

Italy has also a conservative government (Berlusconi) and greece had this year a change towards a conservative government.
Europe is actually far less "socialists" than you think.

Surprise, Surprise?

It really makes me laugh when people say "Kerry is left-wing!" or worse "He is a socialist"- (that last one is the best)

Honestly, people should read-around and actually learn a few political definitions before labelling someone.

Its kinda inaccurate, but offical records say hes the most liberal senator in the senate.
jsut the ones bush decided to tak into account in his lieng campaign ads

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Go to the 2004 primaries chart. Kerry is (strangely enough) plotted as a moderate conservativeIs this a surprise to you? There are no left-wing American senators. American politics are conservative compared to Europe's. I'm not saying it's wrong, just saying.

We are??! Speak for yourself, but I'd be happy to see a better mix of the political spectrum in the U.S. and a little bit of European liberalism in U.S. society.

Good, popular dissent is still there I see. But its sad to see that thinking the US should be more Liberal - Is considered dissent in this day and age.

amusing site -_-
i got a like ~ -5.12/-2.10

Well, according to politicalcompass.org Schröder is slightly right to the centre. Anyway: socialists was Lafontaine (finance minister from 1998-99) who had to go pretty soon. The government is pretty centrists in the economic field. For example I wouldn´t call a tax reform from 25,9% to 53% down to 15%-42% income tax as a step towards socialism. Though that of course was negotiated with parts of the opposition. The original concept of the government was (15%-45,5%).
Anyway: your not-knowledge about right-wing German politicans may be due to the fact that you are of course not following German politics. That is OK. We are after all a small country in central Europe. But then you shouldn´t make such statements. Just say that you don´t know.
Shall I give you a few names: Stoiber (candidate in 2002), Koch, Merkel (chair woman of the CDU, speaker of the CDU/CSU in the Bundestag, likely chancellor candidate of the opposition in 2006).
By the way. The opposition controlls the second chamber the Bundesrat.
It may even get worse for them if they are going to face a two-third majority in the second chamber (Bundesrat) against them next year. The second chamber needs to approve laws affecting the state and changes of the constituition (about half of the laws). It can veto other laws (like budget laws, social laws, e.g.). However this veto can be voted out by the first chamber (Bundestag) with the absolute majority of its members (which is held by the government). Though if the veto is casted by two thirds of the votes in the Bundesrat it can only be overvoted by two-thirds of the votes in the Bundestag. And of course the current government doesn´t have that, hehehe. It is not unusal that the opposition holds the majority in the second chamber. But it would be the first time in the 55 years history of the Federal Republic of Germany that it would held a two-third majority. And it looks very likely that the opposition is going to win the state elections in North-Rhein-Westpfalia and Schleswig-Holstein next year.
Currently the conservatives are ruling 9 of the the 16 states (together with the liberals or alone) while the SPD rules only 7 (though two with the conservatives as coalition partner). And it looks like they are losing another two next years (as mentioned). So, I can´t see a left dominance actually.
The left only ruled between 1969-82 and since 1998. So that is the shorter period in the 55 year history of the Federal Repbublic of Germany.

Italy has also a conservative government (Berlusconi) and greece had this year a change towards a conservative government.
Europe is actually far less "socialists" than you think.
They all have a lot to do if they are to be considered conservative by me. Schroeder himself seems it, but the Reichstag is full of socialists, such as the Socialist Democrat Party, which has the majority. Other farther left parties, such as the Greens, have appreciable numbers.

They all have a lot to do if they are to be considered conservative by me. Schroeder himself seems it, but the Reichstag is full of socialists, such as the Socialist Democrat Party, which has the majority. Other farther left parties, such as the Greens, have appreciable numbers.

And what exactly is wrong with that? Do you want us to adopt your own brand of primitive democracy?

Kerry is actually a bit conservative himself. However, his politics are the opposite of what he believes and follows in his personal life. If you ask me, that's far from a good thing; to hide one's faith and not live it through one's actions.

And what exactly is wrong with that? Do you want us to adopt your own brand of primitive democracy?
I was simply responding to Kybertania's post that Germany is a right-wing nation. It's not. Like I said, it's a two way street. Some nations will always be right-wing nutcases, others will be tree-hugging hippies.

I was simply responding to Kybertania's post that Germany is a right-wing nation. It's not. Like I said, it's a two way street. Some nations will always be right-wing nutcases, others will be tree-hugging hippies.

Oh I see!

So now if you have a basic environmental policy geared towards stopping things such as Global Warming, or believe in free Healthcare for all - you are a tree hugging hippy? Meh.

Oh I see!

So now if you have a basic environmental policy geared towards stopping things such as Global Warming, or believe in free Healthcare for all - you are a tree hugging hippy? Meh.
Nope, a right wing nutcase :). Germany and Scandanavia are tree hugging hippies.

*stares open mouthed*

Kerry has been ranked as the most liberal person in any office...ever. How can anyone think he's anywhere near rightwing?

If he's right wing, than I'm a nazi and Bush is frigging God!

Besides, how can anyone ever tell? it's not like he doesn't change his mind EVERY TWO SECONDS!

*stares open mouthed*

Kerry has been ranked as the most liberal person in any office...ever. How can anyone think he's anywhere near rightwing?

If he's right wing, than I'm a nazi and Bush is frigging God!

*Points to prove how right wing America is - Where somebody that advocates the death penalty, disagrees with a healthcare system, advocates a Hawkish attitude like Bush and still panders to the corporations can be considered Liberal*

ALL politics in america are total 100% bullshit!!!
every thing the candidates say is what they think you want to hear. no more no less.
I love my country, but I hate my government.

yeah well I was around milton friedman, I was pretty happy with it but kerry and all the dems being where they were could be understood as bush isn't to much better than they

*Points to prove how right wing America is - Where somebody that advocates the death penalty, disagrees with a healthcare system, advocates a Hawkish attitude like Bush and still panders to the corporations can be considered Liberal*

Dude, all I know is, Kerry is more liberal than frigging Kennedy, and from my understanding Kennedy was as liberal as they come. Kennedy! And Kerry is more liberal! And they call him right wing! Dude, Bush isn't that far over either. That whole thing needs to go left about a frigging mile.

ALL politics in america are total 100% bullshit!!!
every thing the candidates say is what they think you want to hear. no more no less.

Agreed. Examples: FDR promised to reverse the Hoover Administration's trend of enormous spending, federal intervention in the economy, etc. Once in office, he increased the size of the federal government exponentially, made Hoover look like an anarchist, spent more than three times as much as all thirty-one of his predecessors combined, and dramatically increased the government's power over the economy. Then, in 1940, the bastard said he wouldn't send Americans' sons into foreign wars. Har-har. LBJ said, "We are not about to send American boys 9,000 or 10,000 miles away from home to do what Southeast Asian boys ought to be doing to protect themselves," during the 1964 campaign. On March 8, 1965, the first U.S. combat troops arrived at Da Nang. Nixon promised he wouldn't betray any of our allies. BS. He betrayed Taiwan, South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Reagan promised to reduce government and abolish the Departments of Education and Energy. Once elected, he did neither. George H.W. Bush said, "Read my lips. No new taxes." :rolleyes: Clinton said, "A Clinton Administration would be the most ethical administration in the history of the Republic." Again, har-har. George W. Bush campaigned as a conservative, yet, once he assumed office, he massively increased the size of the federal government, pursued an anti-states' rights domestic policy, an interventionist foreign policy, and spent so much of the taxpayers' money that he made Clinton look like Ebenezer Scrooge.
Are we sensing a pattern here?

They all have a lot to do if they are to be considered conservative by me. Schroeder himself seems it, but the Reichstag is full of socialists, such as the Socialist Democrat Party, which has the majority. Other farther left parties, such as the Greens, have appreciable numbers.
In the economic field the greens are more liberal than the social democrats.
The SPD and the Greens have a very slight majority at the last election.
2002:
SPD 38.5 %
CDU/CSU 38.5 %
GRÜNE 8.6 %
FDP 7.4 %
PDS 4.0 %
Seats:
Total 603 (5Ü)
SPD 251 (4Ü)
CDU/CSU 248 (1Ü)
GRÜNE 55
FDP 47
PDS 2


Conservative and liberal opposition 295, government parties 306 seats. That is really not a bit majority.

Current polls:
SPD 25%
CDU/CSU 43%
Greens 12%
FPD 8%
PDS 7%
Rest 5% (only parties over 5% receive seats)

So, it looks good for a solid majority for conservatives and liberals.

You however should think about your perception of the world. Not every thing left of your opinion is socialist or communists by any realistic means.
Just one comment to our social state. If it was not for it the communist would have taken over here. So, there was and is a good reason to have it.
The early begining of it was already in the 1880s under Bismarck (a hawkish conservative) who saw it as an opportunity to weaken the socialist movement.
It has grown to much, especially in the 1970s when the social democrats ruled. So it turned from a social state to a welfare state.
So today we need to cut it down back to a social state.
But I would not like to cut away basic social security (which garantees a minimum standard - but not more). We are moving in that direction.
But the US isn´t an example for everything, especially not in the health care sector. I favour the Swiss modell in that field (premium modell (per head) organized as a mandatory insurance).

In the economic field the greens are more liberal than the social democrats.
The SPD and the Greens have a very slight majority at the last election.
2002:
SPD 38.5 %
CDU/CSU 38.5 %
GRÜNE 8.6 %
FDP 7.4 %
PDS 4.0 %
Seats:
Total 603 (5Ü)
SPD 251 (4Ü)
CDU/CSU 248 (1Ü)
GRÜNE 55
FDP 47
PDS 2


Conservative and liberal opposition 295, government parties 306 seats. That is really not a bit majority.

Current polls:
SPD 25%
CDU/CSU 43%
Greens 12%
FPD 8%
PDS 7%
Rest 5% (only parties over 5% receive seats)

So, it looks good for a solid majority for conservatives and liberals.

You however should think about your perception of the world. Not every thing left of your opinion is socialist or communists by any realistic means.
Just one comment to our social state. If it was not for it the communist would have taken over here. So, there was and is a good reason to have it.
The early begining of it was already in the 1880s under Bismarck (a hawkish conservative) who saw it as an opportunity to weaken the socialist movement.
It has grown to much, especially in the 1970s when the social democrats ruled. So it turned from a social state to a welfare state.
So today we need to cut it down back to a social state.
But I would not like to cut away basic social security (which garantees a minimum standard - but not more). We are moving in that direction.
But the US isn´t an example for everything, especially not in the health care sector. I favour the Swiss modell in that field (premium modell (per head) organized as a mandatory insurance).
It's still, however, rather far left. I have a deep feeling, btw, that you have left-of-center views on domestic affairs. That's fine. But even though the socialists have a slim majority, it doesn't negate the fact that Germany is socialist.

Dude, all I know is, Kerry is more liberal than frigging Kennedy, and from my understanding Kennedy was as liberal as they come. Kennedy! And Kerry is more liberal! And they call him right wing! Dude, Bush isn't that far over either. That whole thing needs to go left about a frigging mile.
actually kennedy is more liberal but thanks for beleiving all the bs the republican propaganda machine feeds you, goebbels would be proud

It's still, however, rather far left.. Far left???? From what do you draw that conclusion?
The country was in 2002 evenly split between the centre-left (Reds and Greens (SPD and Greens) and Blacks (conservatives) and yellows (liberals).
The German liberals are pretty neo-liberal by the way. I know that you use the world liberal as synonym for left in the US. However that is not true in Europe.

I have a deep feeling, btw, that you have left-of-center views on domestic affairs. That's fine..
Thats funny. People here clearly see me as right-wing, though I myself see myself centre-right.
I´m for example for more cuts in the welfare state. But I´m in favour for a minimum standard of social security. I think that is just. Who works should have more than who doesn´t.

But even though the socialists have a slim majority, it doesn't negate the fact that Germany is socialist.
According to whom? According to an objective assessment it isn´t.
State socialism would be a controlle economy by the state. That is not the case. The tax quota on the GDP is not very high actually (20%). However social security is a high burden. However you have to take into account that due to the state rules that is counted as parth of the state quota in difference to the US where it is done privately. And that is a burden as well. It just doesn´t appear in the US statistic. And don´t forget the people without a health insurance. That is not a very confortable position if they are in need, though.

And furthernmore you should take a look to the policy. And the direction of it is going since the middle of the 1990s into deregulation, privatisation (Post, telecom), cuts in social welfare and tax cuts.
Especially between 1996-98 (end of the Kohl era) cuts in the welfare state were done. And since 2003 there is another wave of cuts (even though we have a left-wing government and the SPD has enormous problems in itself).
So the policy is going in the direction of decreasing the state quota, not increasing it. And that is really the opposite of socialism.

Far left???? From what do you draw that conclusion?
The country was in 2002 evenly split between the centre-left (Reds and Greens (SPD and Greens) and Blacks (conservatives) and yellows (liberals).
The German liberals are pretty neo-liberal by the way. I know that you use the world liberal as synonym for left in the US. However that is not true in Europe.

Thats funny. People here clearly see me as right-wing, though I myself see myself centre-right.
I´m for example for more cuts in the welfare state. But I´m in favour for a minimum standard of social security. I think that is just. Who works should have more than who doesn´t.

According to whom? According to an objective assessment it isn´t.
State socialism would be a controlle economy by the state. That is not the case. The tax quota on the GDP is not very high actually (20%). However social security is a high burden. However you have to take into account that due to the state rules that is counted as parth of the state quota in difference to the US where it is done privately. And that is a burden as well. It just doesn´t appear in the US statistic. And don´t forget the people without a health insurance. That is not a very confortable position if they are in need, though.

And furthernmore you should take a look to the policy. And the direction of it is going since the middle of the 1990s into deregulation, privatisation (Post, telecom), cuts in social welfare and tax cuts.
Especially between 1996-98 (end of the Kohl era) cuts in the welfare state were done. And since 2003 there is another wave of cuts (even though we have a left-wing government and the SPD has enormous problems in itself).
So the policy is going in the direction of decreasing the state quota, not increasing it. And that is really the opposite of socialism.
Good, good. But at the moment, Germany is socialist. It has one of the larger welfare states in Europe. Private property certainly exists, but some sectors, like healthcare, are controlled by the government.
I'm PE's puppet, btw.

.

Good, good. But at the moment, Germany is socialist. It has one of the larger welfare states in Europe. Private property certainly exists, but some sectors, like healthcare, are controlled by the government.
I'm PE's puppet, btw.
And that is bad because....

And by the way. There are private health insurances in Germany. Only workers below a certain income are mandatory inshured at a semi-state insurance. State employees, self-employed people and people above a certain income can go for a private insurance.
That system is much less socialists than the NHS in Britain for example.
And reform ideas of the conservative and liberals would lead to the freedom of chosing an insurance for all, not just the groups who have no the right to do so.

Its kinda inaccurate, but offical records say hes the most liberal senator in the senate.Official records say nothing of the sort. A survey done by the National Journal that was limited to the last year of Senate service said that. Take a limited enough set of votes, and I can make Trent Lott look liberal.

When the National Journal did their top ten most liberal in the Senate over their careers--current Senators--neither Kerry nor Edwards were in the top 10. Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_07/004300.php) discusses this, and quotes from Andrew Sullivan's blog (Sullivan is a conservative pundit and writer).
2003: Kerry - 1st (96.5) Edwards - 4th (94.5)
2002: Kerry - 9th (87.3) Edwards - 31st (63.0)
2001: Kerry - 11th (87.7) Edwards - 35th (68.2)
2000: Kerry - 20th (77) Edwards - 19th (80.8)
1999: Kerry - 16th (80.8) Edwards - 31st (72.2)

Average: Kerry - 12th (85.9) Edwards - 24th (75.7)

The rankings for 2003 are skewed by the campaign season, and a longer look shows that Kerry is liberal, but hardly a Paul Wellstone liberal, and Edwards is smack in the middle of the Democratic pack.

As far as over his career is concerned, Kerry's a liberal, but he's nowhere near number one, even by the National Journal's standards. From The Daily Howler (http://dailyhowler.com/dh080604.shtml)
When GOP hacks say that Kerry and Edwards are first and fourth most liberal senators, they are citing a survey from National Journal. But on March 6, that very same Journal—explicitly responding to this misleading claim—published its list of current senators with the most liberal lifetime voting records. Here it is—the Journal’s Top Ten. Guess whose names aren’t on it?

National Journal: Most liberal senators, lifetime voting
1. Mark Dayton, D-Minn.
2. Paul Sarbanes, D-Md.
3. Jack Reed, D-R.I.
4. Jon Corzine, D-N.J.
5. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
6. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
7. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa
8. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.
9. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.
10. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt

No Kerry. No Edwards. (No Hillary either, but that's another story entirely.)

So is anyone ready to admit that maybe Kerry isn't the socialist Limbaugh has been trying to paint him as?

Dude, all I know is, Kerry is more liberal than frigging Kennedy

i don't think repeating republican talking points counts as a legitimate form of knowledge. especially when they are completely baseless.

Which Kennedy...there are many.

Which Kennedy...there are many.No kidding--Arnold Schwarzenegger is an honorary Kennedy, seing as he married into the family.

And for anyone who is interested, I posted the actual breakdown--according to the National Journal who did the first bogus ranking--of the most liberal Senators, career. Alas, it got stuck at the bottom of page 3.

HOLY CRAP! LOOK AT EDWARDS AND DEAN! AND TO THINK THAT I LIKED THOSE GUYS!!

Fortunately, our nominee is at least the most liberal of the conservative Dems. And no wonder I liked Kucinich the best - he's pretty close to me. Who's Al Sharpton? I never heard anything about him.

Who's Al Sharpton? I never heard anything about him.

he's the black guy that nobody takes seriously, because he's damn amusing. and black.

he's the black guy that nobody takes seriously, because he's damn amusing. and black.
There was more to it than that--Sharpton has a decidedly sketchy past, and deservedly so. He was at the middle of the Tawana Brawley case, and while he's pretty well recovered from that disaster, he's permanently scarred by it. He's a demogogue--an Alan Keyes of the left. He gets off some good lines, but he's not serious political material.

At least Alan Keyes doesn't push his Senatorial opponent, unlike Barack Osama today.

At least Alan Keyes doesn't push his Senatorial opponent, unlike Barack Osama today.
Care to explain that?

And please--Barack Osama? Are we going to descend to these depths again? Or is that the limit of your argumentative prowess?

Care to explain that?

And please--Barack Osama? Are we going to descend to these depths again? Or is that the limit of your argumentative prowess?
Flipping thru the channels, I stopped on WGN when I saw Osama push Keyes in a street. Keyes was getting under his skin, not sure what he said.

Woohoo! Go Al 'Big Daddy' Sharpton! :D

The U.S. wouldn't know what to do with a leftist if one fell into its lap.

If we had any sense, we'd shoot it before it could do any harm.

If we had any sense, we'd shoot it before it could do any harm.
Yep, gotta keep that leftist population down. I bagged a big one (400 pounder) last year during the open season.

Care to explain that?

And please--Barack Osama? Are we going to descend to these depths again? Or is that the limit of your argumentative prowess?

Will someone please enlighten me as to who Barack Osama is? If that's a dumb question (mine usually are ;)), I apologize. Thanks!

Flipping thru the channels, I stopped on WGN when I saw Osama push Keyes in a street. Keyes was getting under his skin, not sure what he said.Maybe this (http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/081504_ns_obama-keyes.html) is what you're talking about. It doesn't say anything about there being a push, but if I were Obama and Keyes suggested I didn't know what it was like to be black because my parents weren't slaves, I'd be tempted to pop him one. That's the problem when you're running against a lunatic--they can get away with crap that no sane person can get away with saying. Doesn't matter--Obama could ignore Keyes from now till November and win handily. The fact that he's willing to engage Keyes at all shows that Obama is a class act.

Will someone please enlighten me as to who Barack Osama is? If that's a dumb question (mine usually are ;)), I apologize. Thanks!
It's Barack Obama, and he's the Democratic candidate for Senate from Illinois, and unless something drastic happens, the next Senator from Illinois. He also gave a wonderful speech at the Democratic National Convention.

It's Barack Obama, and he's the Democratic candidate for Senate from Illinois, and unless something drastic happens, the next Senator from Illinois. He also gave a wonderful speech at the Democratic National Convention.

Thank you! :)

Maybe this (http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/081504_ns_obama-keyes.html) is what you're talking about. It doesn't say anything about there being a push, but if I were Obama and Keyes suggested I didn't know what it was like to be black because my parents weren't slaves, I'd be tempted to pop him one. That's the problem when you're running against a lunatic--they can get away with crap that no sane person can get away with saying. Doesn't matter--Obama could ignore Keyes from now till November and win handily. The fact that he's willing to engage Keyes at all shows that Obama is a class act.
I watched Osama push him, they even replayed it WGN.

Agreed. Examples: FDR promised to reverse the Hoover Administration's trend of enormous spending, federal intervention in the economy, etc. Once in office, he increased the size of the federal government exponentially, made Hoover look like an anarchist, spent more than three times as much as all thirty-one of his predecessors combined, and dramatically increased the government's power over the economy. Then, in 1940, the bastard said he wouldn't send Americans' sons into foreign wars. Har-har. LBJ said, "We are not about to send American boys 9,000 or 10,000 miles away from home to do what Southeast Asian boys ought to be doing to protect themselves," during the 1964 campaign. On March 8, 1965, the first U.S. combat troops arrived at Da Nang. Nixon promised he wouldn't betray any of our allies. BS. He betrayed Taiwan, South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Reagan promised to reduce government and abolish the Departments of Education and Energy. Once elected, he did neither. George H.W. Bush said, "Read my lips. No new taxes." :rolleyes: Clinton said, "A Clinton Administration would be the most ethical administration in the history of the Republic." Again, har-har. George W. Bush campaigned as a conservative, yet, once he assumed office, he massively increased the size of the federal government, pursued an anti-states' rights domestic policy, an interventionist foreign policy, and spent so much of the taxpayers' money that he made Clinton look like Ebenezer Scrooge.
Are we sensing a pattern here?
Amen, brother.

Care to explain that?

And please--Barack Osama? Are we going to descend to these depths again? Or is that the limit of your argumentative prowess?
Actually, evidenced through MANY, MANY other postings, it doesn't seem like this guy ever leaves the apparently republican tradition of deliberate falsification and renaming of intentions and motivations ... either by deliberate dishonesty or vast misunderstanding of subject matter. And the name lends credit to it ... unless this person means bill o'reilly or, based on the intellectual integrity of, say, this response, bill the clay character that got so maimed on older Saturday Night Live sketches.
Well, someone has to set the curve!

Nope, a right wing nutcase :). Germany and Scandanavia are tree hugging hippies.

I don't think that's a fair assessment.
If one looks at members of the Riksdag (Swedish parliament) on a broad sense of left-wing and right-wing, there are currently 191 " left" members and 158 centre or centre-right members. So, it's really quite balanced.

Often our government has been non-left based.

Of course, we may appear left-wing to Americans, because your political spectrum is very skewed to the right compared to European countries.

I don't think that's a fair assessment.
If one looks at members of the Riksdag (Swedish parliament) on a broad sense of left-wing and right-wing, there are currently 191 " left" members and 158 centre or centre-right members. So, it's really quite balanced.

Often our government has been non-left based.

Of course, we may appear left-wing to Americans, because your political spectrum is very skewed to the right compared to European countries.It's all a matter of perspective, of where your personal political viewpoint lies in comparison to those whom you're judging. To some in the US, we're not conservative enough, while to others, we're half a step from fascism. There was a large enough faction who believed in 2000 that there was no real difference between our two major parties to make it a close election--I think time has shown the folly of that point of view.

I don't think that's a fair assessment.
If one looks at members of the Riksdag (Swedish parliament) on a broad sense of left-wing and right-wing, there are currently 191 " left" members and 158 centre or centre-right members. So, it's really quite balanced.

Often our government has been non-left based.

Of course, we may appear left-wing to Americans, because your political spectrum is very skewed to the right compared to European countries.
Interesting, how many consecutive terms have Persson and his party been in power? Hasn't it been like a decade now of Social Democratic rule?

Edit : Heck, since 1932, the SDP has been out of power for something like 9 years.

It's Barack Obama, and he's the Democratic candidate for Senate from Illinois, and unless something drastic happens, the next Senator from Illinois. He also gave a wonderful speech at the Democratic National Convention.
he would have to be convicted of a criminal offense, he is running against a hypocritical ass from alabama

he would have to be convicted of a criminal offense, he is running against a hypocritical ass from alabamaWell, to be fair, Obama would have to be convicted of something like serial child molestation to lose, and Keyes is from Maryland, not Alabama.

Interesting, how many consecutive terms have Persson and his party been in power? Hasn't it been like a decade now of Social Democratic rule?

Edit : Heck, since 1932, the SDP has been out of power for something like 9 years.

But not always alone in government, in coalition.

Yes, Persson has been around for a while now, but then the Conservatives in the UK were the single party in government in Britain for 18 years until Tony Blair in 1997.
If it's how the people voted, it must be respected.

Well, to be fair, Obama would have to be convicted of something like serial child molestation to lose, and Keyes is from Maryland, not Alabama.
sorry i think im confusing people -_-

But not always alone in government, in coalition.

Yes, Persson has been around for a while now, but then the Conservatives in the UK were the single party in government in Britain for 18 years until Tony Blair in 1997.
If it's how the people voted, it must be respected.
Indeed. But taking a look at Sweden's past, you'll see that its not quite as balanced as some might portray it as.

A 'little' farther right?

More like 'ultra-right' in the eyes of most Europeans, the neglection of the squalor in your country astounds us.

We are the "Land of the Free".
...and that includes those that are free to live in squalor.

It's the easiest country to get ahead in.
Those who choose to, can make it.
Those who don't want to, don't have to.

We take care of those that truly want to make it.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

I have to laugh at people who claim Kerry isn't liberal because there's places in the world where his position is right wing. So what? There's places that would make Bush a leftist by comparison, too. But this isn't a world election, it is an election in the USA and that's it.

And on the USA political scale Kerry is a liberal and Bush is a conservative. That's all that really matters.

We are the "Land of the Free".
...and that includes those that are free to live in squalor.

It's the easiest country to get ahead in.
Those who choose to, can make it.
Those who don't want to, don't have to.

We take care of those that truly want to make it.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.Can you back that up with some statistics about social mobility in the US?

I have to laugh at people who claim Kerry isn't liberal because there's places in the world where his position is right wing. So what? There's places that would make Bush a leftist by comparison, too. But this isn't a world election, it is an election in the USA and that's it.
But Kerry doesen't qualify as a leftist by any political dictionary defination either. If you disagree kindly refute it with reference to Kerry's policies.

Sure, you take care of those who truly want to make it, especially guys like Martin Luther King and JFK.

Life is not an even playing field. Some kids are born poor, others are born rich. Privalege and status is not always determined just by your own hand. Often the rich and powerful abuse their position so that it is they that always remain rich and powerful.

Why does america grant free citizenship to those who join its armed forces?
Why does it claim to be a democracy, when less than half the country votes in its elections?
Why are you the 'land of the free'? When was the rest of the world wrapped in chains?

When you say that those who dont want to, dont have to, you are just justifying your own position - that of a fence sitter.

But Kerry doesen't qualify as a leftist by any political dictionary defination either. If you disagree kindly refute it with reference to Kerry's policies.

Perhaps these definitions are what are incorrect.

Politics changes rapidly these days. No matter what the textbooks say, in todays USA political climate, John Kerry is the liberal candidate on the left side of our current political median. That's simply the way it is. Is he the same as every past leftist candidate? No. And future left wing candidates may be more or less extreme. But in the 2004 election, he is it.

Frankly the majority of USA voters don't give a rat's a$$ about where he falls according to the textbooks or world political continuum.

We are the "Land of the Free".
...and that includes those that are free to live in squalor.

It's the easiest country to get ahead in.
Those who choose to, can make it.
Those who don't want to, don't have to.

We take care of those that truly want to make it.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

"The land of the free"? Where you still debate about whether or not you should allow the flag to be burned? Hell I'd spit on your flag and then wipe my arse with it!

And do you honestly believe everyone who is rich is incredibly intelligent with good Business Acumen? My dad handles portfolios for the mega-rich, and some of them are as stupid as shit.

actually kennedy is more liberal but thanks for beleiving all the bs the republican propaganda machine feeds you, goebbels would be proud
One could say the same of you. Believing leftist propaganda, that is.

And that is bad because....


Governments can do nothing without loads of bureaocracy. As some private health insurance exists, Germany is cushioned from loosing out in healthcare/pharmacuetical innovation, or sub-par hospitals. However, as healthcare is still subsidized, it creates a government bureaocracy that's both bloated, and slow to pay healthcare workers.

Perhaps these definitions are what are incorrect.

Politics changes rapidly these days. No matter what the textbooks say, in todays USA political climate, John Kerry is the liberal candidate on the left side of our current political median. That's simply the way it is. Is he the same as every past leftist candidate? No. And future left wing candidates may be more or less extreme. But in the 2004 election, he is it.

#1. you aren't including all of the currently active political persuasions and groups into your analysis of where the median is.

#2. claiming that the terms left and right in politics should only apply to current mainstream politics in a particular country makes them meaningless. we can't compare groups in two different countries or even the same group through time. we can't make any generalizations at all. the point of a political spectrum isn't to let pundits make rhetorical flourishes. it is to allow meaningful groupings of political ideologies and organizations.

Governments can do nothing without loads of bureaocracy. As some private health insurance exists, Germany is cushioned from loosing out in healthcare/pharmacuetical innovation, or sub-par hospitals. However, as healthcare is still subsidized, it creates a government bureaocracy that's both bloated, and slow to pay healthcare workers.

Germany's Public Healthcare system is ranked one of the top in Europe. Unforunately, here in Europe we believe in catering for all our citizens, not just those with money. So believe what you want, but you and your Government can stop trying to enforce your privitization ideology upon us, because frankly, we've seen what it has done in Russia, and we don't want it.

Nazi Weaponized Virus, I have seen what Socialism has done to Europes economy, and WE don't want it!

Nazi Weaponized Virus, I have seen what Socialism has done to Europes economy, and WE don't want it!

Thats... debatable. However you clearly have no undestanding of Europe's economy, we draw a line, a line between what is morally and ethically right for businesses to do. We know we cannot trust businesses to voluntarily respect things like Consumer Rights, Workers Rights and The Environment, so we regulate it. Though The EU is still the biggest economy in The World so it doesn't bother me.

Thats... debatable. However you clearly have no undestanding of Europe's economy, we draw a line, a line between what is morally and ethically right for businesses to do. We know we cannot trust businesses to voluntarily respect things like Consumer Rights, Workers Rights and The Environment, so we regulate it. Though The EU is still the biggest economy in The World so it doesn't bother me.


Man you are brainwashed. The USA has the strongest economy in the world, so you can just keep your 0.8% growth, we will be happy being rich.

BTW, The USA regulates business to, and are more so every year.

Man you are brainwashed. The USA has the strongest economy in the world, so you can just keep your 0.8% growth, we will be happy being rich.

BTW, The USA regulates business to, and are more so every year.

You regulate business 'more so every year'? I am afraid you are very much mistaken, your economy is one of the most unregulated in The World. Hence the term 'Laissez Faire', and the fact that you called us 'Socialist' (Socialism equates with more regulation on business in practice).

Oh and as for your comments about 'being rich' I'm sure you'll be happy to acknowledge there are some inner city areas in American cities (particurlarly LA) where the standard of living is equivalent, or below that of a Third World country - pretty developed eh? I'm sure you'll also be happy to note down the 35 million people who are living below the poverty line. As no other Western European Country has a poverty rate equivalent to that.

And, as for the economy, I think I'll just bring up some evidence.

"The European Union (EU) is the largest economy in the World with a GDP of over $11 Trillion, covering 25 countries with a total of 450 million inhabitants."

Source? 'www.europa.eu.int'

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/USPrimaries031002.gif

Essentially all of them are...

Opal Isle Liberals use that to make everybody they don't like look like a Conservative, Tell Howard Dean he is right-wing and you will be laughed out of the country.

Opal Isle Liberals use that to make everybody they don't like look like a Conservative, Tell Howard Dean he is right-wing and you will be laughed out of the country.

He is Right Wing based on the Global Political spectrum, America's political spectrum is further to the Right of most MEDC's.

Opal Isle Liberals use that to make everybody they don't like look like a Conservative, Tell Howard Dean he is right-wing and you will be laughed out of the country.
Eh...not quite. Seeing how as that website isn't a left-wing site necessarily...

That graph just shows that American liberals aren't communists like the right-wing would like to say they are.

Eh...not quite. Seeing how as that website isn't a left-wing site necessarily...

though the test itself seems to have a slight bias to the left for would be moderate righties - basically some of the economics questions are phrased in such a way that only a randroid could love.

Tell Howard Dean he is right-wing and you will be laughed out of the country.

he advocates some form of social ownership of the means of production and distribution? that'd be news to him.

though the test itself seems to have a slight bias to the left for would be moderate righties - basically some of the economics questions are phrased in such a way that only a randroid could love.
Yea...it's a terrible test.

Yea...it's a terrible test.

i don't think i'd go that far - it seems to do mostly ok for people farther way from the center who know where they should be.

i don't think i'd go that far - it seems to do mostly ok for people farther way from the center who know where they should be.
...which makes it a terrible test...

If you know you're -10, -10, or +10, +10, or -10, +10 or +10, -10, etc then why do you even need to take the test? It's kind of like a 25 year old who is still in the 10th grade taking the ACT. Can't it just be assumed that he'll get somewhere below an 18?

...which makes it a terrible test...

nah, just a few of the things on it need to be slightly reworded to put capitalists who don't think that corporations can do no wrong back over to the right where they belong

Governments can do nothing without loads of bureaocracy. As some private health insurance exists, Germany is cushioned from loosing out in healthcare/pharmacuetical innovation, or sub-par hospitals. However, as healthcare is still subsidized, it creates a government bureaocracy that's both bloated, and slow to pay healthcare workers.
Well, also private insurances have a bureaucracy. And the public insurance is actually run by representatives from the employer organisation (business representatives) and union representatives. Employers and employees pay each 50% of the cost. That is the parity principle. Exists since the 1880s (Bismarcks social reforms - and Bismarck was a hawkish conservative). However at his times unions were still banned of course.
The cooperative modell exists since the 1918/19 - meaning unions and employers are both sitting in the head of the instituition an running it. The same is the case for the so-called disability insurance (which is actually a kind of additional health insurance), retirement and the unemployment insurance. The obligation to be in such an insurance is only the case for employed people above 400 Euro income and below a certain amount (3000, 4500 Euro income per month). All others - self-employed people, state servents, people above or below the income are not supposed to pay into the insurances and of course don´t get anything out as well.
Well: during the 1930s of course everything was run by one party. But after 1945 this system was reestablished in West Germany. And it worked pretty well actually.
Changes are very difficult to make.
But I would favour a modell (premium modell) under which everybody could chose his insurance - however would be obliged to be inshured in order to make shure that he is not going to the social welfare to ask for support. People with low income should get tax cuts or - if their income is even below that get some support from the state. That is the Swiss modell by the way.
The American modell under which many people have no insurance at all is not a modell for me in that field.
And by the way: A lot of pharmaceutical companies are French. They seem to be competitive though.

though the test itself seems to have a slight bias to the left for would be moderate righties - basically some of the economics questions are phrased in such a way that only a randroid could love.A Randroid--that's beautiful. :D

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Go to the 2004 primaries chart. Kerry is (strangely enough) plotted as a moderate conservative


yeah that's mianly because all americans are grossly conservative lol. but look at www.politopia.com he looks really conservative there.