NationStates Jolt Archive

... if everyone was a liberal?

We're all aware of the supposed "Blue/Red" divide in the US, but, hypothetically, what would the nation be like if there was no divide and the vast majority of Americans shared more or less the same political ground? How could history have created a more united United States?

The USA is already far too united to my tastes. The vast majority of political viewpoints is already ignored in favour of two parties that partly overlap.

I would prefer more diversity - not unity.

Likely the Soviet Union would be only super power in the world right now. Communism would have prevailed in the Cold War.

... if everyone was a liberal?We'd have no morals, no concept of dissenting opinions, everyone would think they were unique when in fact we'd just be college-hippie brainwashed clones, we'd always be giving up something else because someone on the other side of the ocean said we hurt their feelings, and our southern states would be Mexico. Anything I missed?

America Liberal?!?!

You sir are a funny man. America is the country with the political choice of hard right, far right and third party candidate that everyone laughs at. How I envy you, in New Zealand we have far left and claims we're centre right but really who are you trying to fool. To conclude I would kill for Hilldog in New Zealand.

We would have kept slavery, and we would have been imperialist. If we even bothered to fight for independance that is.

are you insane?

We would have kept slavery, and we would have been imperialist. If we even bothered to fight for independance that is.

If America was liberal? The religious right would be a clear minority that would make one hell of a big stink because it would no longer be able to get its way. What a day that will be. :)

If America was liberal? The religious right would be a clear minority that would make one hell of a big stink because it would no longer be able to get its way. What a day that will be. :)
Ahhh, so the VAAASSSTTT RIIIGHHHTTT WIIINNNG COOONSSSPIRACYYYY had ruined your life too, huh? Yeah, I hate it when people share their opinions, especially when they believe in a higher power, ugh! I mean, how DARE they! How dare people think what they want! And how dare they try to talk with others who agree with them! OBVIOUSLY a vast effort to wipe out all those eeeevil people who believe in other stuff.....

are you insane?

Most of the supporters of slavery and imperialism back in the days were LEFTISTS of the time.

We'd have no morals, no concept of dissenting opinions, everyone would think they were unique when in fact we'd just be college-hippie brainwashed clones, we'd always be giving up something else because someone on the other side of the ocean said we hurt their feelings, and our southern states would be Mexico. Anything I missed?

That sounds like heaven, dude...
:)

One day... One day.

Ahhh, so the VAAASSSTTT RIIIGHHHTTT WIIINNNG COOONSSSPIRACYYYY had ruined your life too, huh? Yeah, I hate it when people share their opinions, especially when they believe in a higher power, ugh! I mean, how DARE they! How dare people think what they want! And how dare they try to talk with others who agree with them! OBVIOUSLY a vast effort to wipe out all those eeeevil people who believe in other stuff.....

Two questions: what are you smoking and where can I get it?

Seriously, I was just responding to the question. After all, if America was more liberal, then the 'moral majority' or the 'religious right' would have less influence than they do now. I'm not claiming that there is any sort of vast right wing conspiracy (after all, if we refer to your post and to my previous one, we realise who the crazy one is). I'm simply stating that it can have a tantrum but it won't get its way when its a minority and the majority has decided that it is moving on.

Ahhh, so the VAAASSSTTT RIIIGHHHTTT WIIINNNG COOONSSSPIRACYYYY had ruined your life too, huh? Yeah, I hate it when people share their opinions, especially when they believe in a higher power, ugh! I mean, how DARE they! How dare people think what they want! And how dare they try to talk with others who agree with them! OBVIOUSLY a vast effort to wipe out all those eeeevil people who believe in other stuff.....

We'd have no morals, no concept of dissenting opinions, everyone would think they were unique when in fact we'd just be college-hippie brainwashed clones, we'd always be giving up something else because someone on the other side of the ocean said we hurt their feelings, and our southern states would be Mexico. Anything I missed?

It would seem that you do, in fact, hate it when people share their opinions...

Morals are not privy to the religious. Dissenting opinions, sure...but that could be said if we were all conservative. Everyone already thinks they're unique and special like a snowflake. And I'm not quite sure why the south would be Mexican...

Oh, and PC-ism is a fallacy.

are you insane?

The KKK were all Democrats. The South left the Union because a Republican (Abraham Lincoln) won the election.

The same Democrats later wanted to get Wyatt Earp fired for "being too harsh" on the criminals. The same Democrats wanted a war with "the Greasers".

Two questions: what are you smoking and where can I get it?

Seriously, I was just responding to the question. After all, if America was more liberal, then the 'moral majority' or the 'religious right' would have less influence than they do now. I'm not claiming that there is any sort of vast right wing conspiracy (after all, if we refer to your post and to my previous one, we realise who the crazy one is). I'm simply stating that it can have a tantrum but it won't get its way when its a minority and the majority has decided that it is moving on.lol, I didn't mean to come across as harshly as I did. Just started typing and posted.
But I get where you're coming from. Granted there are many who claim to be in power, but thats just it, they CLAIM it. They aren't really Christians. And then those who look down upon us already try to pin their actions onto the rest of us.
Take the evolution vs. Creationism debate. If the schools want to teach it thats cool. But don't ban my views on the basis that you think your theory is the end all. I thought schools were supposed to teach all aspects of thought, even dissenting ones?

I'm not trying to turn this into another Evolution/Creationism debate, there's plenty of other threads for that.

The KKK were all Democrats. The South left the Union because a Republican (Abraham Lincoln) won the election.

The same Democrats later wanted to get Wyatt Earp fired for "being too harsh" on the criminals. The same Democrats wanted a war with "the Greasers".

So.. did the reps and dems switch names ;) ?

Two questions: what are you smoking and where can I get it?

Seriously, I was just responding to the question. After all, if America was more liberal, then the 'moral majority' or the 'religious right' would have less influence than they do now. I'm not claiming that there is any sort of vast right wing conspiracy (after all, if we refer to your post and to my previous one, we realise who the crazy one is). I'm simply stating that it can have a tantrum but it won't get its way when its a minority and the majority has decided that it is moving on.

"There is no clearer sign of the decline of a nation than to see divine worship neglected." -Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli

If america were almost entirely liberal? We'd have gay marriage legally recognized, and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation would be illegal. We'd have "under god" out of our pledge, "in god we trust" off our currency, and "intelligent design" removed from our science class. People would be able to worship however they pleased, but their religious beliefs would not impact law.

We'd have a far better educated populace because we'd give a damn about funding education. We'd have a more productive populace because we'd have social safety nets that mean nobody ever has to drop out of school to provide for their family. We'd have regular, unempeaded access to abortions for any woman who wanted one. We would again be world leaders in fields like medicine and science because we woudln't ban things like stem cell research and cut funding to super collider construction

We'd have better standing in the world because we'd try for peaceful solutions first, and commit military as a last resort only.

Speaking of military, our military wouldn't suffer much at all because we'd still be able to fund it because we'd cut worthless expenditures like "the war on drugs" and actually fund things that are wise investments like education and science.

In short, we'd be a whole lot better off.

The KKK were all Democrats. The South left the Union because a Republican (Abraham Lincoln) won the election.

The same Democrats later wanted to get Wyatt Earp fired for "being too harsh" on the criminals. The same Democrats wanted a war with "the Greasers".

...Democrat does not equal "liberal", Republican does not equal "conservative". For the vast majority of the parties histories, they were exactly opposite of what they are considered now.

The KKK were all Democrats. The South left the Union because a Republican (Abraham Lincoln) won the election.

The same Democrats later wanted to get Wyatt Earp fired for "being too harsh" on the criminals. The same Democrats wanted a war with "the Greasers".

are you trying to imply that the KKK is or was liberal?

The KKK were all Democrats. The South left the Union because a Republican (Abraham Lincoln) won the election.

The same Democrats later wanted to get Wyatt Earp fired for "being too harsh" on the criminals. The same Democrats wanted a war with "the Greasers".

Please note, the question was, what if america had been liberal, not if they had been democrats. You are quite right, in the 19th century, the democrats did some very not nice things. They also weren't in any way, at the time, liberals.

So it's a very disingenuous leap to answer the question of "what would america be like if it were more liberal" to talk about what the democrats did, at a time they were very much not liberals.

It wasn't until about the turn of the century that the democratic party became more liberal, disavowed slavery as a practice, cut its ties with the KKK, supported racial integration, and put itself behind labor unions.

You can argue all you want of "what if america had always been controlled by democrats" but that wasn't the question. He asked what it'd be like if we had been more liberal, and the democrats of the era you discuss were anything but liberal. The leftwing swing of the democratic party came years later.

So.. did the reps and dems switch names ;) ?

The basic difference is that Democrats wanted more States' rights and Republicans wanted less. That is why Democrats were pro-slavery. There does seem to be a slight turn-around here. The evident turn-around was during FDR's Presidency when many blacks left the Republican party. Originally 85%+ blacks were Republicans.

I would say that the modern Libertarian party is mostly the equivalent to the old Democrat party except for:

A: They are generally anti-war.
B: They are not so racist.
C: They are somewhat less patient with criminals.

I would certainly say that the modern Democrat party is very much like the old Republican party, but more lenient with criminals.

So.. did the reps and dems switch names ;) ?

actually....kinda, yes. The democratic party became more liberal, pulling elements from the leftist republican party. In response, many more "conservative" members of the democratic party switched to republican.

In essence, that's exactly what happened.

Just because some well known person wrote it does not make it true. I don't see Sweden in much of a decline, and they are the least religious society, last I checked. Actually, iirc, they have one of the highest standards of living, and one of the highest life expectancies.

Jesus has very little to do with prosperity.

Well, it is actually quite funny because Machiavelli was considered immoral and non-religious. He said himself he hated attending church. And you must rembmer he wrote this:

CHAPTER XII.--That it is of much moment to make account of Religion; and
that Italy, through the Roman Church, being wanting therein, has been
ruined.

Princes and commonwealths that would save themselves from growing
corrupted, should before all things keep uncorrupted the rites and
ceremonies of religion, and always hold them in reverence; since we can
have no surer sign of the decay of a province than to see Divine worship
held therein in contempt. This is easily understood when it is seen on
what foundation that religion rests in which a man is born. For every
religion has its root in certain fundamental ordinances peculiar to
itself.

The religion of the Gentiles had its beginning in the responses of the
oracles and in the prognostics of the augurs and soothsayers. All their
other ceremonies and observances depended upon these; because men
naturally believed that the God who could forecast their future weal or
woe, could also bring them to pass. Wherefore the temples, the prayers,
the sacrifices, and all the other rites of their worship, had their
origin in this, that the oracles of Delos, of Dodona, and others
celebrated in antiquity, held the world admiring and devout. But,
afterwards, when these oracles began to shape their answers to suit the
interests of powerful men, and their impostures to be seen through by
the multitude, men grew incredulous and ready to overturn every sacred
institution. For which reason, the rulers of kingdoms and commonwealths
should maintain the foundations of the faith which they hold; since
thus it will be easy for them to keep their country religious, and,
consequently, virtuous and united. To which end they should countenance
and further whatsoever tells in favour of religion, even should they
think it untrue; and the wiser they are, and the better they are
acquainted with natural causes, the more ought they to do so. It is
from this course having been followed by the wise, that the miracles
celebrated even in false religions, have come to be held in repute; for
from whatever source they spring, discreet men will extol them, whose
authority afterwards gives them currency everywhere.These miracles were common enough in Rome, and among others this was
believed, that when the Roman soldiers were sacking the city of Veii,
certain of them entered the temple of Juno and spoke to the statue of
the goddess, saying, "_Wilt thou come with us to Rome?_" when to some
it seemed that she inclined her head in assent, and to others that they
heard her answer, "_Yea_." For these men being filled with religious awe
(which Titus Livius shows us by the circumstance that, in entering
the temple, they entered devoutly, reverently, and without tumult),
persuaded themselves they heard that answer to their question, which,
perhaps, they had formed beforehand in their minds. But their faith and
belief were wholly approved of and confirmed by Camillus and by the
other chief men of the city.

Had religion been maintained among the princes of Christendom on the
footing on which it was established by its Founder, the Christian States
and republics had been far more united and far more prosperous than they
now are; nor can we have surer proof of its decay than in witnessing how
those countries which are the nearest neighbours of the Roman Church,
the head of our faith, have less devoutness than any others; so that
any one who considers its earliest beginnings and observes how widely
different is its present practice, might well believe its ruin or its
chastisement to be close at hand.

But since some are of opinion that the welfare of Italy depends upon the
Church of Rome, I desire to put forward certain arguments which occur to
me against that view, and shall adduce two very strong ones, which, to
my mind, admit of no answer. The first is, that, through the ill example
of the Roman Court, the country has lost all religious feeling and
devoutness, a loss which draws after it infinite mischiefs and
disorders; for as the presence of religion implies every excellence, so
the contrary is involved in its absence. To the Church, therefore, and
to the priests, we Italians owe this first debt, that through them we
have become wicked and irreligious. And a still greater debt we owe them
for what is the immediate cause of our ruin, namely, that by the
Church our country is kept divided. For no country was ever united
or prosperous which did not yield obedience to some one prince or
commonwealth, as has been the case with France and Spain. And the Church
is the sole cause why Italy stands on a different footing, and is
subject to no one king or commonwealth. For though she holds here her
seat, and exerts her temporal authority, she has never yet gained
strength and courage to seize upon the entire country, or make herself
supreme; yet never has been so weak that when in fear of losing her
temporal dominion, she could not call in some foreign potentate to aid
her against any Italian State by which she was overmatched. Of which we
find many instances, both in early times, as when by the intervention
of Charles the Great she drove the Lombards, who had made themselves
masters of nearly the whole country, out of Italy; and also in recent
times, as when, with the help of France, she first stripped the
Venetians of their territories, and then, with the help of the Swiss,
expelled the French

The Church, therefore, never being powerful enough herself to take
possession of the entire country, while, at the same time, preventing
any one else from doing so, has made it impossible to bring Italy under
one head; and has been the cause of her always living subject to many
princes or rulers, by whom she has been brought to such division and
weakness as to have become a prey, not to Barbarian kings only, but to
any who have thought fit to attack her. For this, I say, we Italians
have none to thank but the Church. And were any man powerful enough to
transplant the Court of Rome, with all the authority it now wields over
the rest of Italy, into the territories of the Swiss (the only people
who at this day, both as regards religion and military discipline, live
like the ancients,) he would have clear proof of the truth of what I
affirm, and would find that the corrupt manners of that Court had, in
a little while, wrought greater mischief in these territories than any
other disaster which could ever befall them.

Most of the supporters of slavery and imperialism back in the days were LEFTISTS of the time.

how so? care to explain what was particularly liberal/left-wing about them?

"There is no clearer sign of the decline of a nation than to see divine worship neglected." -Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli

Just because some well known person wrote it does not make it true. I don't see Sweden in much of a decline, and they are the least religious society, last I checked. Actually, iirc, they have one of the highest standards of living, and one of the highest life expectancies.

Jesus has very little to do with prosperity.

Pretty much what other posters have said. Social and civil freedoms would be paramount and there would be more spending in areas that are usually given the cold shoulder in the US.

There would doubtless still be problems: no system is perfect. The increase in spending may result in an increase in the size of government, to the point where it may become bloated and overly complex...

And to make things simple: Yes slavery in the South was backed by the Democrats of the day, who cannot be equated to today's party of the same name. So don't listen to any pundits (albeit very stupid pundits) who try to tack that onto a Democratic candidate.

...And for the record, Machiavelli is a gigantic ass...

... if everyone was a liberal?

We're all aware of the supposed "Blue/Red" divide in the US, but, hypothetically, what would the nation be like if there was no divide and the vast majority of Americans shared more or less the same political ground? How could history have created a more united United States?

This would obviously depend on when that set of beliefs became so widespread. Make it early enough and most of what's the USA in RL would probably still be divided between the native tribes, Britain, Mexico and/or Spain, Russia, and possibly (if the Louisiana Purchase had never occurred) France...

... if everyone was a liberal?

We're all aware of the supposed "Blue/Red" divide in the US, but, hypothetically, what would the nation be like if there was no divide and the vast majority of Americans shared more or less the same political ground? How could history have created a more united United States?

Canada?

a hell of a lot less stressful, more interesting and funkey, or would it?
i don't know. really depends on what is being called 'liberal' and who's doing the labeling.

i know what kind of a country/world i'd rather be living in though, and i really don't care what its called by anyone. and i know it isn't the america i am living in.

idiology isn't where anyone lives. the conditions they experience are.

and the more arbitrary the policies that create those conditions the worse they are.

every idiology and ecomonmic theory is a motivation and excuse for the arbitraryness of those policies. there are no exceptions.

the one unity that is good unity is when people unite to support each other's diversity. that isn't what i've seen but what i've occasionally heard pretended to, usually by those most opposed to it in practice, who have mostly labled themselves as coming from 'the right', though i've occassionally seen and heard a few on 'the left' or supposedly on 'the left' or labled there by themselves or more often others, just as bad.

so i really don't know what is being ment or implied by a 'liberal' america.

i do know i'd like to live in one, or any other place for that matter, that wasn't dominated by christothemic pretentions, nor the fantasy that everything good is created by and depends upon the illusions of symbolic value.

i'd like to see torii gates and little people sized trains in my mountains of light, instead of endless pavement and parking lots. and people building really wierd and creative kinds of places to live in. alowed and encouraged to do so themselves, instead of cookie cutter tickey tackey mass produced subdivisions. i'd like to see no borders anywhere closed to any unarmed civilian at any time or place for any reason.

i'd like to be able to ride on something running on some kind of guideway, and scalled to demand, from any place to any place there is solid earth underneath it to build it upon.

yup those are the main things, wierd little houses and little people sized trains. gardens in place of parking lots and park strips with the little trains and bike paths running down through them, in place of paved streets.

no, i don't KNOW what "liberal" is, in the sense that if there were any sort of universally aggreed upon deffinician of it that made any kind of sense, but i can and do imagine a world not usurped by corporate mafia and the circular illogic of symbolic value.

i know that what I call liberal, means not putting arbitrary pseudo-traditions, ahead of the real morality of the avoidance of causing suffering, and how that also requires harmony with nature's cycles of renewal on which our very existence ultimately depends.

and THAT, yes, i would, VERY MUCH, like to see.

=^^=
.../\...

lol, I didn't mean to come across as harshly as I did. Just started typing and posted.
But I get where you're coming from. Granted there are many who claim to be in power, but thats just it, they CLAIM it. They aren't really Christians. And then those who look down upon us already try to pin their actions onto the rest of us.
Take the evolution vs. Creationism debate. If the schools want to teach it thats cool. But don't ban my views on the basis that you think your theory is the end all. I thought schools were supposed to teach all aspects of thought, even dissenting ones?

I'm not trying to turn this into another Evolution/Creationism debate, there's plenty of other threads for that.

Personally, I find that not teaching unscientific theories in science class is more common sense than anything else.





@OP: It would be hard to tell since modern American liberals weren't around the whole time America has been in existence. Back in the beginning, Jeffersonian policy would probably be the closest thing and that probably would mean that the US would have delayed industrialization due to Jefferson's preference of agriculture (and the giving of free land to citizens), which could even mean that the South could have succeeded in leaving the Union due to the lack of one of the Union Army's biggest advantages.

If we go a bit later to Jacksonianism (the next movement to be counter to what we would probably consider the predecessor to today's Republicans), we would still use gold as there would be no banking, and I have no idea what the other effects would be...

Trying to figure out what would happen if the nation was 'liberal' is flawed since liberals in their modern form weren't around for a long time, and anything to cause a surge in that particular ideology would affect the nation in many ways more than the actual ideology shift itself.

Or maybe I'm just rambling since i didn't sleep well last night, I dunno...

EDIT: And I think we'd still have slaves since slavery was supported by the side we'd probably consider more economically leftist in the Civil War, being outlawed in favor of capitalism

So.. did the reps and dems switch names ;) ?

just about damd near, beggining more or less with f.d.r. the dems became pro unionization and pro the little guy (as much as anybody could) and the retardlicans became the party of kissing the ass of big buisiness and the corporatocracy.

but to call any of them anything today, no, the're all just proffessional politicians, which means knowing how to tell people what they want to hear, while stabbing everone but themselves in the back, and only themselves because they can't reach it very well but occasionally manage to do even that too.

i think there are still, now, more democrates who WANT to be for creating the kinds of conditions for everybody most people would want to live in then there are republicans who would. though in neither party are they a real majority.

=^^=
.../\...

... if everyone was a liberal?

We're all aware of the supposed "Blue/Red" divide in the US, but, hypothetically, what would the nation be like if there was no divide and the vast majority of Americans shared more or less the same political ground? How could history have created a more united United States?

Damn, we'd be a crippled nanny state, where nothing would ever get done for fear of offending some random group of people.

The terrorists would have won, of course.

I thought schools were supposed to teach all aspects of thought, even dissenting ones?
Nope. That's not what schools are for at all. Never were.
"There is no clearer sign of the decline of a nation than to see divine worship neglected." -Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli
"A witty saying proves nothing" -Voltaire
If america were almost entirely liberal? We'd have gay marriage legally recognized, and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation would be illegal. We'd have "under god" out of our pledge, "in god we trust" off our currency, and "intelligent design" removed from our science class. People would be able to worship however they pleased, but their religious beliefs would not impact law.

We'd have a far better educated populace because we'd give a damn about funding education. We'd have a more productive populace because we'd have social safety nets that mean nobody ever has to drop out of school to provide for their family. We'd have regular, unempeaded access to abortions for any woman who wanted one. We would again be world leaders in fields like medicine and science because we woudln't ban things like stem cell research and cut funding to super collider construction

We'd have better standing in the world because we'd try for peaceful solutions first, and commit military as a last resort only.

Speaking of military, our military wouldn't suffer much at all because we'd still be able to fund it because we'd cut worthless expenditures like "the war on drugs" and actually fund things that are wise investments like education and science.

In short, we'd be a whole lot better off.

Yeah, basically this.

... if everyone was a liberal?

We're all aware of the supposed "Blue/Red" divide in the US, but, hypothetically, what would the nation be like if there was no divide and the vast majority of Americans shared more or less the same political ground? How could history have created a more united United States?
We'd be more like Canada -- without the funny accents, though.

The KKK were all Democrats. The South left the Union because a Republican (Abraham Lincoln) won the election.

The same Democrats later wanted to get Wyatt Earp fired for "being too harsh" on the criminals. The same Democrats wanted a war with "the Greasers".
So?

Being a Democrat doesn't make you left-wing, especially not in the first part of the 20th century.

Although if we're talking actual liberal instead of the Yank version, then it would probably be a nation much like it was in the 1920s. Massive amounts of wealth, almost all in the hands of the rich, with about half the population in poverty.

"A witty saying proves nothing" -Voltaire

Thanks. I couldn't find a witty retort. Nicely done. :)

We'd be more like Canada -- without the funny accents, though.

No funny accents in Canada? Are you kidding? Those Newfies got an accent to boot, and apparently people who live in the Ottawa valley do as well... (I know because my husband has told me that I have an accent; which translates when I ask for more details, that I actually enunciate...)

No funny accents in Canada? Are you kidding? Those Newfies got an accent to boot, and apparently people who live in the Ottawa valley do as well... (I know because my husband has told me that I have an accent; which translates when I ask for more details, that I actually enunciate...)
No, no, no.

They're saying that it would be like Canada sans comedy accents. I don't think there's any doot aboot the amusing qualities of Canadian accents, eh?

Thanks. I couldn't find a witty retort. Nicely done. :)
I like it because of the ironing :)



No funny accents in Canada? Are you kidding? Those Newfies got an accent to boot, and apparently people who live in the Ottawa valley do as well... (I know because my husband has told me that I have an accent; which translates when I ask for more details, that I actually enunciate...)

Everyone has an accent. Everyone except me and the people where I live.

Damn, we'd be a crippled nanny state, where nothing would ever get done for fear of offending some random group of people.And?

We're all aware of the supposed "Blue/Red" divide in the US, but, hypothetically, what would the nation be like if there was no divide and the vast majority of Americans shared more or less the same political ground?

In reality, there is not that much of a divide. Most Americans and most parts of America are of a purplish persuasion. The illusion of a divide is created by a winner-take-all system of politics.

In reality, the two major parties stances do not differ significantly on many important issues; they usually disagree on means rather than ends, and will criticize each other for failed policies that both parties supported initially. And the divisive issues tend to be as divisive within the parties as between them.

For example, neither party really questioned the need to go to Iraq at the time, only in retrospect. Neither party is really in favour of same-sex marriage, they just disagree on how to prevent it.

On issues like immigration, there is as much division between say, McCain and Mitt Romney as there is between the Democrats and the Republicans.

And on issues like energy independence and the environment, Huckabee is more progressive than most of the Democrats.

Everyone has an accent. Everyone except me and the people where I live.

Says the goiy from Doobblin... ;)

Says the goiy from Doobblin... ;)

Wrong accent, loike. It's more D4, roysh?


Besides, I'm not from Dublin. I just go to college there.

Wrong accent, loike. It's more D4, roysh?


Besides, I'm not from Dublin. I just go to college there.

Ah, how would I know? I only ever lived in D7 :p

And it would suck. It would be a left-wing frot fest to the max.To the max? Hardly. And an exclusively centrist government would not be left-wing. Left of the current government and the one before it, but most certainly not left-wing.

And?

And it would suck. It would be a left-wing frot fest to the max.

It would be a magical land full of duckies and bunnies. ANd the duckies would have sex with the bunnies out of wedlock and the duckies would marry other duckies and the bunnies would marry other bunnies. The duckies and bunnies would have lots of kids, except for the ones they abort and any unaborted buckies would be adopted by the duckie and bunny couples who would raise them to marry other buckies.

And within a generation we would all be buckies and would have sex with other buckies and dance amongst the daffodils. :)

To the max? Hardly. And an exclusively centrist government would not be left-wing. Left of the current government and the one before it, but most certainly not left-wing.

A little too left for my liking. And left wing by American standards.

A little too left for my liking. And left wing by American standards.That's ok, tell someone who cares :)

American standards are about as relevant as Iranian standards, which, if applied to Bush, would make him a moderate leftist. Like putting a light gray page next to a white page makes it dark, even though it actually isn't. Or breaking your femur and your tibia. The tibia is painless compared to the femur, though in reality, it would get labelled painful. Or like a midget that's an inch taller than another midget can be considered tall, if you ignore that he isn't.

Ah, how would I know? I only ever lived in D7 :p
I'm afraid I can't associate with you anymore, or the won't let me into the yacht club.
A little too left for my liking. And left wing by American standards.

Left wing by American standards is still right wing by any other standard.

Liberals arent leftist......DAH........................believe me

With an argument like that, how could we not?! ;)

Liberals arent leftist......DAH........................believe me

And that is the problem with the world today. Too many left wingers.Not really. Left-wing governments usually get along well with other left-wing governments. It's primarily clashes between the right-wingers that endanger world peace.

Left wing by American standards is still right wing by any other standard.

And that is the problem with the world today. Too many left wingers.

I'm afraid I can't associate with you anymore, or the won't let me into the yacht club.


Is it because I'm officially a culchie now? :(

And that is the problem with the world today. Too many left wingers.



No there are to many facists and rigthists if it was up to me you would all be rotting in a prison in Sibiria(or is it siberia?)

And that is the problem with the world today. Too many left wingers.

Oh, don't be such a hetero...

I've got to agree with Trollgaard on this one. Too much of any political ideology tends to be a bad thing, especially if the "liberals" in question are the tax-and-spend kind that go way beyond allowing people to do what they want and just explode the size of the federal government with minimal benefit. By the time it's done and gone, there's really no difference between the "liberals" and everyone else.But we'd save all that money from not going to war in Iraq so there'd be no need to tax.

And it would suck. It would be a left-wing frot fest to the max.

I've got to agree with Trollgaard on this one. Too much of any political ideology tends to be a bad thing, especially if the "liberals" in question are the tax-and-spend kind that go way beyond allowing people to do what they want and just explode the size of the federal government with minimal benefit. By the time it's done and gone, there's really no difference between the "liberals" and everyone else.

Oh, don't be such a hetero...

Is that an insult?

But we'd save all that money from not going to war in Iraq so there'd be no need to tax.

The fuckton of money wasted on welfare, universal health care, and other non-government role programs that would be enacted wouldn't be nickels and dimes.

Maybe I'll just flay all the lefties alive then? Like that?

lulz

Anyway, there should always be left wing and right wing people, though I prefer if there were a bit more right wingers.



You are supposed too get mad and start saying that USA is #1 and that you own everyone else so that I can say tss tss tss americans :mad:

The fuckton of money wasted on welfare, universal health care, and other non-government role programs that would be enacted wouldn't be nickels and dimes.Indeed, but they'd be a lot less than what we've spent on the war so far :)

You are supposed too get mad and start saying that USA is #1 and that you own everyone else so that I can say tss tss tss americans :mad:

Haha

Is that an insult?

So's your face!

Given how many so-called "liberal" Democrats voted for the Iraq War, and how many played up their militaristic credentials during that time, I highly doubt that.Ah, but we're talking nearly a century of liberalism here, so there's no reason to believe that we would have ended up with a war like that.

But we'd save all that money from not going to war in Iraq so there'd be no need to tax.

Given how many so-called "liberal" Democrats voted for the Iraq War, and how many played up their militaristic credentials during that time, I highly doubt that.

There is no such thing as a government that does not collect taxes.

If everyone was a liberal, we'd be living in Huxley's World State. If everyone was a conservative, we'd be living in Atwood's Republic of Gilead.

It's just a matter of picking your poison.

... if everyone was a liberal?

That would be weird. There are only a teeny tiny handful of liberals in this country as it is, after all, so it would be a real change. I think it would be a vast improvement, but that's because I think liberalism is generally better than the radical right wing crap we've got right now.


We're all aware of the supposed "Blue/Red" divide in the US, but, hypothetically, what would the nation be like if there was no divide and the vast majority of Americans shared more or less the same political ground? How could history have created a more united United States?
Well, that's a different question. I don't think the USA would automatically be a better place if the vast majority was united, because they could be united about profoundly shitty ideas.

Given how many so-called "liberal" Democrats voted for the Iraq War, and how many played up their militaristic credentials during that time, I highly doubt that.
The scare quotes around "liberal" are the key, though. In my opinion, there were MAYBE half a dozen actual liberals in the legislature when the Iraq War was voted on. And that is being very, very generous.

Just keep in mind that an American liberal is a moderate conservative anywhere else. :)

Nupotia, just what do you think the ideology label "liberal" means?

Just keep in mind that an American liberal is a moderate conservative anywhere else. :)Well, not really, they'd be referred to as liberals. Anywhere else just doesn't have that silly notion that it means "left-wing".

No there are to many facists and rigthists if it was up to me you would all be rotting in a prison in Sibiria(or is it siberia?)

So by your own definition of what right wing is, you would send yourself to a siberian gulag?

A witty saying proves nothing" -Voltaire


Just so. Ergo, the above statement is null and void. Whereas mine, which makes no attempt at wit, and is a quote from a political adviser who arduously studied history, holds water.

But by "Divine worship" Machiavelli does not necessarily mean that religion makes sense; he just says it is important politically. He said a ruler can certainly be an atheist, but for political purposes should appear devoted to God. He praised the pagan religion of the Romans over Catholicism. I would say he knew what he was talking about.

For instance: If terrorists were not relgious, do you think they would have lasted this long against the U.S.?

Most of the supporters of slavery and imperialism back in the days were LEFTISTS of the time.
What is a "leftist," exactly?

You seem to be harboring under the delusion that the definition of "leftist" is "a supporter of the US Democratic Party." For one thing, the US Democratic Party wasn't always leftist, and one could easily argue that it's not leftist even today.

Then again, there is no universal definition of "leftist," so it's mostly a meaningless word anyway. Self-described leftists don't even agree among themselves on what it means to be a leftist.

What is a "leftist," exactly?

You seem to be harboring under the delusion that the definition of "leftist" is "a supporter of the US Democratic Party." For one thing, the US Democratic Party wasn't always leftist, and one could easily argue that it's not leftist even today.

Then again, there is no universal definition of "leftist," so it's mostly a meaningless word anyway. Self-described leftists don't even agree among themselves on what it means to be a leftist.

In the context he is using it in, "leftist" means to support states' rights.

We'd be more like Canada -- without the funny accents, though.

says the guy from Georgia...:p

And that is the problem with the world today. Too many left wingers.
I feel that your quitting school was maybe a bad idea.

I feel that your quitting school was maybe a bad idea.

Lulz, I actually decided to transfer to community college to finish up all the general education requirements.

Lulz, I actually decided to transfer to community college to finish up all the general education requirements.
Sound choice.

I belive the topic of this came up in the late 1700's during the constitutional convention. The federalists (wanted centralized government), led by Alexander Hamilton, believed we should all be united, for the most part like how we are today, while on the other hand, Thomas Jefferson and the anti-federalists (wanted a loose confederation of states) wanted to keep power in the states for fear that a federal government could be corrupt and every law would automatically overrule and state legislature. In a way both sides were right, even though the federalists came out on top in the end. So really are we that divided? I think both sides want the same thing really, they just have different interpretations on how to go about doing it.
P.S. I'm not talking about the Civil War confederation of states, even at the start of our nation there was the same argument.
P.S.S If everyone was liberal, I belive God would have destroyed America a long time ago. Seeing as we were supposed to be founded on GOD, and not man's wants, why are liberals trying so hard to go against it anyways.
P.S.S.S The idea of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness NEVER EXISTED! Everyone knows happiness is supposed to be PROPERTY just like John Locke intended. Jefferson was a suck up and just wanted the arguments over to type of government to be established to be over with.

Just so. Ergo, the above statement is null and void. Whereas mine, which makes no attempt at wit, and is a quote from a political adviser who arduously studied history, holds water.

But by "Divine worship" Machiavelli does not necessarily mean that religion makes sense; he just says it is important politically. He said a ruler can certainly be an atheist, but for political purposes should appear devoted to God. He praised the pagan religion of the Romans over Catholicism. I would say he knew what he was talking about.

For instance: If terrorists were not relgious, do you think they would have lasted this long against the U.S.?

And by 'witty saying' Voltaire does not necessarily mean a saying that tries to be witty. I just think it goes well after someone uses a quote as it if proves something.

......we should all be united, for the most part like how we are today.......So really are we that divided?
Clearly not :p
P.S. I'm not talking about the Civil War confederation of states, even at the start of our nation there was the same argument.
P.S.S If everyone was liberal, I belive God would have destroyed America a long time ago. Seeing as we were supposed to be founded on GOD, and not man's wants, why are liberals trying so hard to go against it anyways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_tripoli#Article_11
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;
Enjoy your secular state. Also, that should be 'P.P.S.', not 'P.S.S.'
P.S.S.S The idea of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness NEVER EXISTED! Everyone knows happiness is supposed to be PROPERTY just like John Locke intended. Jefferson was a suck up and just wanted the arguments over to type of government to be established to be over with.
What do you mean by saying the idea never existed?

... if everyone was a liberal?

It wouldn't be the United States.

P.S.S If everyone was liberal, I belive God would have destroyed America a long time ago. Seeing as we were supposed to be founded on GOD, and not man's wants, why are liberals trying so hard to go against it anyways.

Fail.

Well, not really, they'd be referred to as liberals. Anywhere else just doesn't have that silly notion that it means "left-wing".
The notion that "left-wing" means anything is silly to begin with.

Fail.

noooooooooooo not another one.

Damn, we'd be a crippled nanny state, where nothing would ever get done for fear of offending some random group of people.

QFT.

And that is the problem with the world today. Too many left wingers.

Actually, it's not so much that there are too many of them as it is that they are the ones who receive all the press and media coverage. They don't give equal time to the so-called "right-wingers".

No there are to many facists and rigthists if it was up to me you would all be rotting in a prison in Sibiria(or is it siberia?)

Then I'm glad it's not up to you. Being right-wing is no reason to be thrown in to a prison in Siberia to rot.

I've got to agree with Trollgaard on this one. Too much of any political ideology tends to be a bad thing, especially if the "liberals" in question are the tax-and-spend kind that go way beyond allowing people to do what they want and just explode the size of the federal government with minimal benefit. By the time it's done and gone, there's really no difference between the "liberals" and everyone else.

Agreed. :)

That would be weird. There are only a teeny tiny handful of liberals in this country as it is, after all, so it would be a real change. I think it would be a vast improvement, but that's because I think liberalism is generally better than the radical right wing crap we've got right now.

Liberal =/= better
"Right-wing" =/= crap
America becoming completely liberal =/= a "vast improvement"