Page 14 of 23 FirstFirst ... 4567891011121314151617181920212223 LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 441

Thread: USA Federal shutdown. What's happening?

  1. #261
    Border Patrol's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Irvine, California
    Posts
    4,286

    Default Re: USA Federal shutdown. What's happening?

    That I actually don't have much of a problem with.
    Proud Nerdimus Maximus of the Trench Coat Mafia.

  2. #262

    Default Re: USA Federal shutdown. What's happening?

    I really was not being lazy in providing a source for this, its just that CNN, MSNBC, and other news sites I had a hard time finding an article on this on. Mostly on FOX (which I refuse to cite). So I actually kinda thought I was doing a favor by sourcing that. I agree, I'm not a fan of the organization, but the proof is all there and cited as PP clinics clearly violating the law and exploiting loopholes to keep young women's abortions a secret and failing to report pimping activity. It was not just one isolated case dude.
    You quote from a cite that isn't a news source and is known for lying. Sorry, I won't accept it. Regardless, none of it proves anything about the original contention, which is that federal funding goes to abortions. You just brought up a bunch of other stuff as a strawman or diversion I guess.

    So while I don't think that its a big enough issue to stop an entire federal budget over, I do believe I have enough sufficient information to argue against continuing funding them. I still have not had an answer on why PP requires funding when I've pointed out several times that other clinics and organizations do the very same thing, without federal funding.
    If this is sufficient evidence and enough to stop their funding, then every single major organization would have to be defunded.

    However, there is exception to that, and that is labor unions. I've already provided sources on unions such as SEIU being extremely involved in Congressional elections. Union support is what got Rahm Immanuel elected Mayor of Chicago, Lisa Murkowski re-elected in Alaska as a write-in, largely supported Obama in his Senate bid, and got Harry Reid re-elected despite being very unpopular in the state of Nevada.
    And corporations got a bunch of Republicans elected. Labor unions are an interest group like corporations, but much less powerful. It's not an ideological group like the Tea Party, and isn't good for comparison.

    Not only that, but union households don't vote Democratic nearly as monolithically as the Tea Party votes Republican. 59% of members of union households voted Democratic in the 2008 election.

    If Democrats were able to more coherently form an opposition, a left wing Tea Party could come about, but the Democrats are too unpopular right now and rightly so. They haven't been able to form any kind of coherent platform on par with the GOP.
    This is because they have a bigger tent and less homogenity. Even when popular they can't form the lock-step conservative coalition. Indeed, when they're less popular, it should be easier to form a coalition, but it still isn't, because the Democratic Party is ideologically diverse.

    Prove to me that right extremists are worse than left wing extremists. You can't because you cannot prove a negative in a debate. It's largely an opinion and one that isn't rooted in any form of objectivity. There are no studies that show the Tea Party being a destructive force nor the left wing groups being particularly destructive. So there is nothing here other than your subjective perception of the Tea Party of being all encompassing and taking over American conservative politics. A similar wave came about with the Reform Party in 92, look what happened to that.
    I never said the Tea Party is all encompassing or the cause. They are just a symptom of the radicalization of the right. I am not even saying they are "worse", just that they have a lot more power and have a lot of control of the Republican Party in comparison to Democrats and liberals.

    This is not false equivalency for two reasons, the Tea Party shares a lot in common with similar movements in the pasts and the GOP establishment has shown no interest in adopting all of the Tea Party platforms. In fact, when Barack Obama leaves the White House either in '12 or '16, the movement will lose a lot of cohesion because the Tea Party is primarily centered around opposition to Obama's 'socialist' policies. Without a central figurehead for criticism, the Tea Party will be less and less necessary for the opposition, especially when the GOP eventually regains control. Populist movements have never had the energy to maintain momentum for extended periods of time.
    As I said before, the Tea Party is just a symptom of consrvative extremism, not its cause.

    Now I could be proven wrong on this, but these little 'movements' that have happened in many elections prior to this have all gone the same way of the dodo and I see absolutely no reason not to believe that it will eventually whither away.
    It probably will, but the conservative's dominance of the Republican Party won't go away with it.

    Mathias, the reason why I am not addressing what you keep going on about right here is because you are attempting to say that the Tea Party has ignited the entirety of the conservative base, or something similar along those lines. Now the reason why you are wrong here is because the Tea Party is mostly popular among conservative Republicans, NOT conservative Democrats! That's why I asked you for SPECIFIC numbers on Tea Party activity, not just some overarching analysis of conservatism because that is not what we are discussing.
    No, I just contend that the Tea Party is proof that the conservatives have taken over the Republican Party and become more extreme.

    I cited actual Tea Party sources on their activities and membership to prove to you that the Tea Party has not been embraced universally among Americans who identify themselves as conservative. You are not seeing that what I'm trying to prove here is that the Tea Party is actually not much more powerful than the Reform Party was in the 90s. Ross Perot received a very similar number in support in the 92 election. The Reform Party was primarily a conservative base which attacked Bush Sr and the GOP for the failure of Reaganomics, foreign policy, and the deficit levels. I have proven to you with real numbers that the Tea Party is not an all encompassing conservative movement, if it were, what are the Blue Dogs and conservative Democrats and conservative Independents largely supporting?
    I never said the Tea Party is all-encompassing. They are almost all conservatives (and white, but that's another thing). They don't encompass all conservatives, but they are a conservative movement.

    The population of the US is around 311,135,831 currently. 60% of the population is about 186,681,498. Now polls say that 40% of the population in general identifies themselves as conservative, however, the poll you cited does not say exactly how much of the voting population is conservative. If we said that 40% of the entire American population is conservative, we get a number that is 124,454,332 Americans that are conservative and if only 20% of the American population is liberal we get a number that is 62,227,166 Americans. Now the real numbers of party membership are 55,000,000 are Republican party members and 72,000,000 are Democratic party members and 44,000,000 are independents. And if we say that 18% of the voting population is Tea Party active, we get a number of 33,602,669. Now let's multiply that by the number of Republicans that are in the Tea Party, which is 53% of the Tea Party. That makes the number of GOP active in the Tea Party 17,809,414.
    Just because a person identifies by Party ID as "independent" doesn't mean they don't always vote one way. Many do. Better to do it by ideology, since Party ID isn't what we are arguing, it is the number of conservatives, independents included, that control the right and Republicans. You don't have to ID yourself as a Republican to vote Republican and be conservative. Republicans go after conservatives, whether they ID as Republican or independent, so to leave out conservative independents is rather disingenuous. Especially since Tea Partiers overwhelmingly vote Republican. Also, not all of those registered as Democrats or Republicans or Independents ID themselves as such, that is a separate question, and also depends on state law with registration.

    For another, the poll is of adults 18 and up, so we can just look at the population of the US 18 and up, which is 232 million. 60% of that is 139 million that actually votes (in presidential elections, maybe, 124 million voted in 2008 for example, though population has risen since then, but 139 million is generous). Now, how many of the voting population are tea partiers? It's more than 18%, unless we believe that only 60% of all Tea Partiers vote, which I don't believe. Something tells me if you are a member of the Tea Party, you are politically active compared to the general population. So let's say 90% for argument's sake, since I don't think there are any figures out there. 18% of the general adult population are Tea Partiers, about 42 million people. We assume 90% vote, that's 38 million. 139/38 = 27% of the voting population. Even more during mid-terms, when turnout is much lower no doubt, and even more during primaries. So, 27% of voters are Tea Partiers in a presidential election scenario.



    From this, I'll add "always" and "usually" and half of "equally" for the Republicans together to see how many Tea party supporters are basically Republican voters in any given election. 48 + 18 + 12(rounded down for ease) we get 78% of Tea Party supporters voting Republican in any given election. 78% of 38 million is about 30 million. Let's say that Republicans win the next election by the same percentages that Obama did in 2008, 53%. 73 million votes. That means 41% of such a win would be Tea Party supporters for Republicans. That's a huge part of their base, especially for such a big win that would require lots of moderates. And if they got 46%, like Republicans actually did, then they would be 47% of the Republican vote. And if you look at lower turnout elections like mid-terms and primaries, especially primaries, then you're getting 50, 60, 70% of the Republican vote being from that initial 18% of the populace.

    I do not agree that the Tea Party is the extreme of the extreme at all. I think they main problem with the Tea Party is its too socially extreme. But fiscally, they aren't really all that conservative when you really look at it. In fact, there are far more radical people in the base than the Tea Party. Such as the practical anarcho-capitalists.
    I agree to some extent, which means that beyond the Tea Party you have other extremist conservatives in the Republican Party as well.

    Yet you fail to source any of your assumptions about the GOP base and your predictions about Tea Party support are completely off. So your argument is basically hyperbole based on your assumptions without sourcing history nor real facts. At least my predictions are based on the past history of conservative movements.
    You haven't shown anything in terms of the makeup of the Republican Party not being much narrower and more extreme than the Democratic Party.

    It's not good to have a government shutdown at all is my point. And if there was a shutdown, the most serious risk it poses is to our national security first and foremost, which is the most basic level of government. I'm sorry, but you're making a false equivalence between things like the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense. If it goes unfunded, do you honestly believe people won't take the opportunity to exploit the weakness of the situation?
    It would keep going, the soldiers just wouldn't be getting paid at that time, but they would get backpay.

    Then that is a foolish position to take and its based on nothing more than hyperbole assumption of what the Republicans do and don't care about. How's that image of Republicans being bad human beings panning out for you? You have absolutely no facts to support your belief that Republicans don't want to pay their soldiers or government workers. The only reason why it was an issue is because Congress nearly failed to pass a budget. This does not in any way make any sense to compare this to their overall belief about general federal employee pay.
    Uhh, how about the fact that they opposed bill after bill to raise benefits for veterans and soldiers? And they are graded significantly worse by Iraq veteran's groups than Democrats?

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/2...erans-affairs/

    http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/4...upport_troops/

    http://iava.org/index.php

    I don't get it? I'm not the one claiming that DADT was repealed because of public opinion.
    Well then you are naive. The reason Obama and Dems aren't supporting gay marriage yet is because they don't have widespread popular support. They did for DADT, so they pushed the issue, and that was that.

    Seriously, I challenge you to go back and read the news articles on how it became repealed.
    From Wikipedia:

    In his 2008 election campaign, President Barack Obama advocated a full repeal of the laws barring homosexuals from serving in the military.[36] On October 10, 2009, Obama stated in a speech before the Human Rights Campaign that he will end the ban, but offered no timetable.[37] As president, Obama said in his first State of the Union Address in 2010, "This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are."[38] This statement was quickly followed up by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Michael Mullen voicing their support for a repeal of DADT.[39]
    Hmmm, Obama brought it up first in 2008. Unsurprisingly, he had his own people in the executive branch ready to support his decision after he announced it as the next agend in 2010. Uhh yeah.

    Captain Jin has already proven you completely wrong on this in another thread and you still irresponsibly maintain this retarded position. Either you know next to nothing about military procedure or you are willfully ignoring the facts to support your overall view of it.
    Who is Captain Jin?

    Oh really? Did that change Great Britain's policy in the past few months? Oh and have you read any of what the MoD cuts have done to damage their military's cohesion in Afghanistan? They have been having problems with equipment failure and the like. If you truly want more soldiers to die in conflicts and put more civilian lives at risk, yeah, I suppose you could try and cut funding in a cowardly way to change policy.
    Not according to these people: http://www.mfso.org/section.php?id=51

    Guess they're cowards, right?

    Freakin hilarious. Uhh, the point is, if you defund the war, the war doesn't continue, so more soldiers don't die from a lack of equipment, since they come home. This is incredibly basic stuff. Defunding the war = ending the war.

    You are failing to understand that foreign policy is outline first and then Congress makes bills along the lines of it. Bush's intervention in Iraq had nothing to do with having the money to it, it had everything to do with his following in step with Bill Clinton's foreign policy, which passed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
    Wow, this is just sadly ignorant. Bush went to war based on a lie or incompetence or both. To argue otherwise by now is sad. And if Congress had not funded the war, the troops would have had to come home.

    Policy is formed first in legislature, then appropriations comes later. That's basic legislative branch procedure for you.
    Not really, or necessarily. Often they are done at the same time. As in, let's appropriate these funds here to promote this policy. Or, let's take funds away here to demote this policy.

    And result in more American lives killed in the process. Good job, well done. You defeated the war in the worst possible political way possible. Truth is, the Dems didn't have the balls to actually make a bill that would actually withdraw any troops at all, just attack the funding so as to purposefully make the war grow even worse and become so bad that we would have no choice to withdraw. You call that proper ing foreign policy procedure? You call the Republicans inhuman here? Your proposal would result in a lot more American and civilian deaths and completely destroy our integrity abroad even further.
    No, defunding the war would result in the troops coming home, not staying in Iraq to starve and not have equipment. But funding a war based on lies and incompetence not only gets American and Iraqi lives killed, but costs trillions of dollars. Good job, well done.

    The Congress can't force the troops to withdrawal with a bill. They don't have the power. But they do have the power of the purse. I call the will of the people represented by the Congress to be proper. If the Congress voted to defund a war, then that's that and the troops come home. Your rants that more Americans would die yadda yadda yadda are based on nothing.

    BS. If Congress fails to pass a budget, its Congress as a whole for failing in its duty to find compromise and perform one of its most basic legislative duties. Your giving undue credit to one particular platform without anything to show that its only the Republicans blocking it, with absolutely no credit given to the fact that Democrats equally had no interest in compromising on the budget either, accusing the GOP of completely gutting the benefits system. Which is nothing more than hyperbole on their part.
    Let me make this simple. One side wants to compromise. The other side refuses to compromise. Whose fault is it? Don't think too hard!

    There is a difference between accepting responsibility and making painful decisions to reach common ground than just pointing fingers and blaming one person or one party. That's ing child behavior, not proper legislative behavior. A lot of things had to be compromised to make things like the New Deal happen, the Civil Rights Act, and even the Declaration of Independence itself. You can't always make something all encompassing and fixing everything all at once. And the GOP and the Dems are both implicated in attempting to roll all of their endeavors into the budget to posture for 2012. There is absolutely no denying this.
    The only thing there is no denying is that Republicans have been much less willing to compromise since they've become radical, and as such, deserve most of the blame.

    Here's your problem of your entire analysis of American politics. You keep thinking as if politics is one dimensional, a straight line with conservative to liberal. You are completely disregarding what Democrats and Republicans differ on the scope of government/social scale. Politics are two-dimensional.

    You're wrong in assuming Democrats are conservative and here's why your poll stats are irrelevant.

    You are completely disregarding the entire top to bottom axis of political ideology. That's why most political tests in political sciences look something like the Political Compass or the Nolan Chart. You are not factoring in at all the fact that the GOP and the Democrats are very similar on the social scale, but are mostly differing on the fiscal/economic scale.

    http://www.politicalcompass.org/

    Thus, this is why you are having a hard time discerning what conservatism in the US means.
    Obviously, I don't seem to be having a hard time at all:



    The corners of the square and the edges are extremists, right? McCain and Palin are much closer to the outside than the inside. Meanwhile Obama and Biden are both on the right. They are just more moderate than McCain and Palin. So saying Republicans are extremist conservatives on the right and that Democrats are moderate conservatives seems just about right.

    There is nothing wrong with my statement there. The stats you keep referencing are completely disregarding the stance of Americans on anything more than a one dimensional scale and it also says nothing about how much government they want. This is where the real difference may lie.
    It's actually quite possible to generalize the Republican Party as being ran by far-right conservatives without delving into every single complexity of politics.

    Military policy is not a democratic decision. They make decisions based on the recommendations of the Chiefs of Staff in conjunction with Congress and/or the Supreme Court. Public pressure has NOTHING to do with military policy.
    Yeah, tell that to Vietnam.

    Without independents and moderate support, no President has ever won an election and no Congress ever makes a majority without the swing vote.
    Party ID is useless. The thing to look at is ideology. The point is, for Republicans, conservatives are far more important to win over than moderates. They need some moderates to win, but conservatives are their base. Hence Sarah Palin. That was the sign that conservatives had become more important to Republican election chances. Palin. Seriously, it's good proof.

    Yeah, 44,000,000 voters are apathetic and shallow. The same can be said of Democratic and Republican fanboys that know nothing of the positions they adopt or the long term consequences the two party system has.
    No, the 40% of the populace, 100 million people, that doesn't vote in presidential elections, and bigger numbers that don't vote in mid-terms and primaries. They are apathetic and idiotic. A democracy depends on an active electorate that is well informed and votes. It hurts society when it is not. Anyone who doesn't vote is hurting society, and that is idiotic. Of the people that don't vote, at least when I talk to them, they rarely have an ideology or stance and don't know anything about politics going on or even what a Democrat and Republican, much less liberal and conservative, are.

    In fact, the people that do vote for the politicians they about have more blame than the people that don't vote. Obviously, they don't vote in the idiots do they?
    Not voting is a vote. If you don't vote against idiots, then you helped them win.

    That's because you used a poor tactic of attempting to shift the blame to the party they were considering. They saw through your tactic and rejected your supposition. If someone is pissed that the Democrats abandoned their principles and dissatisfied their voters, they will be voted out. Simple as that.
    It wasn't a tactic, I was just informing her of the guy she was about to vote for's own stance on issues, it wasn't lies, it was facts.

    It teaches Congressional leaders to listen to their constitutes and it has little to do with ideology. You could have sat down and discussed why exactly the Democratic candidate had shifted his position and why that position was better than the one he ran on. Taking responsibility for a stance goes a lot further than simply saying 'the other side is worse'. That's why they didn't listen to you because you used a pundit tactic.
    Uhh, you don't get it. She was opposed to his reasoning for taking that stance, period. He hadn't shifted his position. It's a conservative policy on schools, no doubt about it. That's what it is. All I could do is say that if you are opposed to conservative policies on schools, then you might want to reconsider voting for his opponent, as he is for even more conservative policies. She's a teacher, so she knows about the issues facing her, but that's all she knew. It wasn't a pundit tactic. Lots of people vote to cut off their nose to spite their face because they are ignorant and think the other party will somehow be better or different. They don't understand or research the other party's own positions though.

    Again, they have more room to complain than the people that do vote for the dumbasses that betray them in the end. They either don't care or have the foresight to not support either lesser of two evils if both are equally evil.
    Ah yes, equally evil, I'm starting to see the false equivlancy creep back in. Let me tell you, the world would be a simple place if there was ever a choice that was "equally evil", especially in politics. Course, that's not reality and never has been. But that is often the excuse of people who don't vote, at least if they don't want to admit they're just lazy. All that means is that they're intellecutally lazy.

    They certainly have no room to complain at all. They didn't even vote.

    On top of which, Independents are generally far more conscientious in their vote than Rep and Dem fanboys because they typically vote on policy and not on ideology.
    Independents vote on ideology all the time. They just don't identify with a party.

    What are you talking about? Bush Sr. is looked up to with high regard by the current GOP. In fact, a lot more so than Bush Jr.
    Bush Jr. is the lowest of the low, so not a good comparison, but in terms of ideology, Bush Sr. would be considered a socialist commie now.

    Which, again, the issue has nothing to do with policy nor ideology. It's fanboy sensationalism. Prove that the birther movement is a far-right ideology. It's not. It's general opposition to Obama's character and this includes the pundit Hillary Clinton supporters than jumped on that bandwagon too. (Much of them swung McCain in 2008)
    Uhh, no. It's not a general opposition to Obama's character, it's a racist conspiracy theory, period. And the fact that almost all the birthers are conservatives shows that it's a far-right movement. The fact that the conspiracy was started by people on the far right. It's not an ideology, it's a conspiracy held near and dear by conservatives almost exclusively.

    Furthermore, what the hell do birthers have to do with the budget? Nothing.
    They're further proof of the extremism and power of conservatives within the Republican Party, just like the Tea Party, and explain the lack of compromise and willingness to take it down to the 11th hour on things like freakin planned parenthood.

    I never made the claim that the Tea Party is an all encompassing hard right movement. That burden of proof lies on YOUR side, sir. Not mine. That is not my ridiculous position and I have absolutely no responsibility to prove wrong a point that has absolutely no basis in fact, nor are your suppositions and hyperbole even accurately pinpointed in the very sources you present.

    Thus, you have no proof other than your supreme subjectivity that the Republicans are solely to blame or that the Tea Party is a dangerous movement which you believe have no similarity to similar populist conservative or liberal movements throughout American history. No, it is not my place to prove a negative, that's your responsibility, since you made the ridiculous claim.
    Never claimed it was, so your strawman is irrelevant.

    What I am seeing here is nothing more than a one dimensional view on American politics and a genuine feeling of spite towards conservatism in general with absolutely no reason or cause apart from your own subjective view on how the world works with no basis in the real world or what's really going on at all in America. Or for that matter, do you have any factual evidence to back up your general opinion of the Tea Party is being hard-right, which you view as a threat to the so-called 'moderate' order.

    In the end though, the real facts of what's going on today will more than explain themselves next year and then you'll see what effects the Tea Party really has over the GOP. When all is said and done and the GOP regain power, they no longer have any need for stirring up the hard-right. You are obviously mistaking clear election maneuvering for actual ideological platforms.
    If you can't admit that the Republican Party is more extreme than it has been in a long time and that the Tea Party and birther movements are symptoms of this, then you are completely disconnected from reality. Quite a few moderate Republicans see it, and they're scared. This is the thing, the Republicans won big in the mid-terms, so according to you they should have become more moderate, but they doubled down on the crazy instead. That's because the base of the party didn't change. You just had a bunch of moderates and independents vote for the opposite party because of the economy. Meanwhile, the ideological base of the party is still extremist conservative.

  3. #263
    Menelik_I's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Republic of Angola, Permitte divis cetera.
    Posts
    10,081

    Default Re: USA Federal shutdown. What's happening?

    Quote Originally Posted by MathiasOfAthens View Post
    I am suggesting we begin infrastructure projects where they are needed. Train stations in urban centers with tracks between each destination. There would be more demand for that in an urban center than a suburban sprawl, obviously.

    Stop getting all hyperbole and translating what I write into whatever you think liberals say.

    Values and goods. Commuter trains have value and they can help transport goods... so why wouldnt there be demand there. Private investors are less likely to invest in such a large scale investment for more than one reason.
    I there isn't a train commuter system in the US that ever turned a profit or work at 50% capacity ... might be an exception or two.

    But I'm really interested in how you know.... how you know ?

    @Matthias:

    A most helpful diagram is the following:
    Obama policies are comparable to LBJ.

    http://www.rightcondition.com/2009/1...-spectrum.html
    Last edited by Menelik_I; April 10, 2011 at 04:23 AM.
    « Le courage est toujours quelque chose de saint, un jugement divin entre deux idées. Défendre notre cause de plus en plus vigoureusement est conforme à la nature humaine. Notre suprême raison d’être est donc de lutter ; on ne possède vraiment que ce qu’on acquiert en combattant. »Ernst Jünger
    La Guerre notre Mère (Der Kampf als inneres Erlebnis), 1922, trad. Jean Dahel, éditions Albin Michel, 1934

  4. #264
    Caelifer_1991's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Bristol, United Kingdom, European Union
    Posts
    2,924

    Default Re: USA Federal shutdown. What's happening?

    I love how that diagram puts Liberalism, Socialism and Totalitarianism together, completely ignoring any sort of real dynamic in the matter whatsoever and the fact that Liberalism is for all intents and purposes directly opposed to Totalitarianism. I've been trolling all day (well, for maybe an hour) but I must concede you the troll prize of the day, congratulations!

    Also LOL how smoking bans are put just to the left of Mao and right of the draft, keep this up and I'll need to up my game.
    Last edited by Caelifer_1991; April 10, 2011 at 09:25 AM.

  5. #265
    MathiasOfAthens's Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Stockholm, Sverige
    Posts
    22,877

    Default Re: USA Federal shutdown. What's happening?

    That diagram is pretty ing pathetic. Political ideologies for one are not linear. Wheres Nazism?

    Besides Totalitarism is not a political ideology anymore so than Authoritarianism. Its just the top leader having all the power.

    How do I know that commuter trains are successful? Look at Europe, Japan, China and your see successful systems.

    Regardless, cost overruns are normal expected and public financing is often required. Rapid transit is an alternative to extensive roadways, highways, suburban sprawls etc. The system allows higher ridership capacity with less land use, less environmental impact, and a lower cost.

    Last edited by MathiasOfAthens; April 10, 2011 at 09:44 AM.

  6. #266
    Menelik_I's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Republic of Angola, Permitte divis cetera.
    Posts
    10,081

    Default Re: USA Federal shutdown. What's happening?

    Quote Originally Posted by MathiasOfAthens View Post
    That diagram is pretty ing pathetic. Political ideologies for one are not linear. Wheres Nazism?

    Besides Totalitarism is not a political ideology anymore so than Authoritarianism. Its just the top leader having all the power.
    The graph is not about ideologies, which are all a bunch of BS anyway, it is about policy and the relative SIZE of government.

    Did Hitler defined Nazism has ''Jew killing warmongering monstrous cult Dictatorship'' ?

    You will never find someone define his ideology without using positive appealing words, but the policy doesn't lie
    « Le courage est toujours quelque chose de saint, un jugement divin entre deux idées. Défendre notre cause de plus en plus vigoureusement est conforme à la nature humaine. Notre suprême raison d’être est donc de lutter ; on ne possède vraiment que ce qu’on acquiert en combattant. »Ernst Jünger
    La Guerre notre Mère (Der Kampf als inneres Erlebnis), 1922, trad. Jean Dahel, éditions Albin Michel, 1934

  7. #267
    MathiasOfAthens's Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Stockholm, Sverige
    Posts
    22,877

    Default Re: USA Federal shutdown. What's happening?

    Quote Originally Posted by Menelik_I View Post
    The graph is not about ideologies, which are all a bunch of BS anyway, it is about policy and the relative SIZE of government.

    Did Hitler defined Nazism has ''Jew killing warmongering monstrous cult Dictatorship'' ?

    You will never find someone define his ideology without using positive appealing words, but the policy doesn't lie
    There is a right and a left political spectrum. Right is on the right side, Left is on the Left. Political Ideologies often fall on one of those two sides. Nazism is on the far right. Communism is on the far left. Get with the ing times.

  8. #268
    Menelik_I's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Republic of Angola, Permitte divis cetera.
    Posts
    10,081

    Default Re: USA Federal shutdown. What's happening?

    Quote Originally Posted by MathiasOfAthens View Post
    There is a right and a left political spectrum. Right is on the right side, Left is on the Left. Political Ideologies often fall on one of those two sides. Nazism is on the far right. Communism is on the far left. Get with the ing times.
    1- Why is Nazism far right ?
    2- Secondly the Diagram scale is ''SIZE OF GOVERNMENT'', from no government control over the economy to TOTAL CONTROL.

    In that sense the graph is right, Nazi State size was comparable to Soviet one.
    « Le courage est toujours quelque chose de saint, un jugement divin entre deux idées. Défendre notre cause de plus en plus vigoureusement est conforme à la nature humaine. Notre suprême raison d’être est donc de lutter ; on ne possède vraiment que ce qu’on acquiert en combattant. »Ernst Jünger
    La Guerre notre Mère (Der Kampf als inneres Erlebnis), 1922, trad. Jean Dahel, éditions Albin Michel, 1934

  9. #269
    MathiasOfAthens's Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Stockholm, Sverige
    Posts
    22,877

    Default Re: USA Federal shutdown. What's happening?

    Size of government with a spectrum from Libertarism to Totalitarism. Problem is the ideology doesnt make the size of the government. Governments in other countries may have larger or small governments but since they are liberal they would have to fall on the right side of your spectrum? Basically that graph has already made up its mind... all liberals go to the right...
    A Proper Size of government Graph. Comparing Countries to Countries. Not just lumping in politicians, parties and ideologies into a size of government graph.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Technically according to your graph Germany, France and the UK are all Totalitarian governments that restrict rights to their people.

    And your source is bias. It put itself on the left.

  10. #270
    Menelik_I's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Republic of Angola, Permitte divis cetera.
    Posts
    10,081

    Default Re: USA Federal shutdown. What's happening?

    Quote Originally Posted by MathiasOfAthens View Post
    Size of government with a spectrum from Libertarism to Totalitarism. Problem is the ideology doesnt make the size of the government.
    Quote Originally Posted by MathiasOfAthens
    , Regardless, cost overruns are normal expected and public financing is often required. Rapid transit is an alternative to extensive roadways, highways, suburban sprawls etc. The system allows higher ridership capacity with less land use, less environmental impact, and a lower cost
    You have nuked my Irony detector
    « Le courage est toujours quelque chose de saint, un jugement divin entre deux idées. Défendre notre cause de plus en plus vigoureusement est conforme à la nature humaine. Notre suprême raison d’être est donc de lutter ; on ne possède vraiment que ce qu’on acquiert en combattant. »Ernst Jünger
    La Guerre notre Mère (Der Kampf als inneres Erlebnis), 1922, trad. Jean Dahel, éditions Albin Michel, 1934

  11. #271
    MathiasOfAthens's Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Stockholm, Sverige
    Posts
    22,877

    Default Re: USA Federal shutdown. What's happening?

    My point was just that lumping in all the ideologies or some in your graph was innacurate and doesnt prove a thing.

    Still... cost overruns are expected in both private and public infrastructure projects.

  12. #272

    Default Re: USA Federal shutdown. What's happening?



    Wow, this is just an embarrasing "graph". Why is something like national defense libertarian and universal healthcare is totalitarian? It makes absolutely no sense. What is "national offense"? Ahh, but then you see the source, a right wing political hack site.

  13. #273
    Menelik_I's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Republic of Angola, Permitte divis cetera.
    Posts
    10,081

    Default Re: USA Federal shutdown. What's happening?

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthias View Post


    Wow, this is just an embarrasing "graph". Why is something like national defense libertarian and universal healthcare is totalitarian? It makes absolutely no sense. What is "national offense"? Ahh, but then you see the source, a right wing political hack site.
    I love how people interpret graphs without without read the scale ... note to oneself -<<Reconsider position public education : Nuke schools>>.

    Take the scale into account and try to come with a coherent argument on it ... the Public Sector designed launcher is not working, you have 5 min to redeem yourself >.>
    « Le courage est toujours quelque chose de saint, un jugement divin entre deux idées. Défendre notre cause de plus en plus vigoureusement est conforme à la nature humaine. Notre suprême raison d’être est donc de lutter ; on ne possède vraiment que ce qu’on acquiert en combattant. »Ernst Jünger
    La Guerre notre Mère (Der Kampf als inneres Erlebnis), 1922, trad. Jean Dahel, éditions Albin Michel, 1934

  14. #274

    Default Re: USA Federal shutdown. What's happening?

    Quote Originally Posted by Menelik_I View Post
    I love how people interpret graphs without without read the scale ... note to oneself -<<Reconsider position public education : Nuke schools>>.

    Take the scale into account and try to come with a coherent argument on it ... the Public Sector designed launcher is not working, you have 5 min to redeem yourself >.>
    Uhh, your post is completely incoherent. But the US National Defense gets a ton of our spending and is an example of "Big Government" like no other. Why is "transport" on the left? Does that mean this guy supports high speed rail as not big government? It's like this guy got drunk and randomly threw up "policies" onto this "graph"

  15. #275
    Menelik_I's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Republic of Angola, Permitte divis cetera.
    Posts
    10,081

    Default Re: USA Federal shutdown. What's happening?

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthias View Post
    Uhh, your post is completely incoherent. But the US National Defense gets a ton of our spending and is an example of "Big Government" like no other. Why is "transport" on the left? Does that mean this guy supports high speed rail as not big government? It's like this guy got drunk and randomly threw up "policies" onto this "graph"
    lol aruments are easy m8, it absolve people of thinking about stuff.
    « Le courage est toujours quelque chose de saint, un jugement divin entre deux idées. Défendre notre cause de plus en plus vigoureusement est conforme à la nature humaine. Notre suprême raison d’être est donc de lutter ; on ne possède vraiment que ce qu’on acquiert en combattant. »Ernst Jünger
    La Guerre notre Mère (Der Kampf als inneres Erlebnis), 1922, trad. Jean Dahel, éditions Albin Michel, 1934

  16. #276
    Caelifer_1991's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Bristol, United Kingdom, European Union
    Posts
    2,924

    Default Re: USA Federal shutdown. What's happening?

    Menelik it repeatedly has very similar and/ or comparable policies at completely different ends and sides of the graph depending on predefined opinions as to where they should be given a biased and completely ignorant perspective. Not only that but there's a wide range of variation between many of the policies such as education, transport, healthcare, etc, which if all taken to the extreme should be at identical points on the graph for one thing. The graph is retarded, the person that wrote it was either retarded or trying to indoctrinate his/ her followers with lies, generalisations and just general stupidity, with no accuracy in any of the information given whatsoever. It is incoherent, poorly thought out, wrong when it is stating something that makes sense, and for the majority of the time simply doesnt make sense at all. Even if it did, it's layout is rediculous, intentionally misleading and hard to interpret, and what's more does not take into account in any way how any of the policies relate to each other in any coherent political ideology , simply taking them as individual examples taken in isolation which itself is retarded. It groups together ideologies that are nothing alike, including Liberalism and Totalitarianism which are directly opposed, as well as giving the impression that those 2 and Socialism are all generally as far apart from each other as Conservatives and Libertarians, which is rediculous. If that wasn't bad enough by itself it then goes on to include on the same axis ideologies such as Conservatism and Liberalism with Libertarianism and Authoritarianism, as represented by Totalitarianism in a way that is itself rediculous since it only counts the extreme, giving the impression that Liberarianism and Authorarianism are themselves political and economic stances in the same vein as Liberalism and Conservatism as opposed to simply effecting one's outlook on the extent of the role of government.

    The graph is rediculous, convulated, inaccurate, misleading and utterly retarded in every way that it could be, and is without a doubt the worst graph categorically that I have ever seen in my life.
    Last edited by Caelifer_1991; April 10, 2011 at 02:57 PM.

  17. #277
    Menelik_I's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Republic of Angola, Permitte divis cetera.
    Posts
    10,081

    Default Re: USA Federal shutdown. What's happening?

    Quote Originally Posted by Caelifer_1991 View Post
    something
    Ideologies are always nice by their definitions, what matter is the policy that materialize ... but hey let ''lulz Win''
    « Le courage est toujours quelque chose de saint, un jugement divin entre deux idées. Défendre notre cause de plus en plus vigoureusement est conforme à la nature humaine. Notre suprême raison d’être est donc de lutter ; on ne possède vraiment que ce qu’on acquiert en combattant. »Ernst Jünger
    La Guerre notre Mère (Der Kampf als inneres Erlebnis), 1922, trad. Jean Dahel, éditions Albin Michel, 1934

  18. #278
    Caelifer_1991's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Bristol, United Kingdom, European Union
    Posts
    2,924

    Default Re: USA Federal shutdown. What's happening?

    Ideologies are always nice by their definitions, what matter is the policy that materialize ... but hey let ''lulz Win''
    Sorry, what? Regarding both ideologies and policies the graph is wrong in every conceivable way.

    What you've just shown, is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever seen. At no point, in it's rambling, incoherent statements, was it even close to anything, that could be consider a rational thought. Everyone in this thread, is now dumber for having seen it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy upon your soul.
    Last edited by Caelifer_1991; April 10, 2011 at 01:21 PM.

  19. #279
    Menelik_I's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Republic of Angola, Permitte divis cetera.
    Posts
    10,081

    Default Re: USA Federal shutdown. What's happening?

    Quote Originally Posted by Caelifer_1991 View Post
    Sorry, what? Regarding both ideologies and policies the graph is wrong in every conceivable way.
    What is the meaningful difference between Nazi and Soviet in practice ...
    « Le courage est toujours quelque chose de saint, un jugement divin entre deux idées. Défendre notre cause de plus en plus vigoureusement est conforme à la nature humaine. Notre suprême raison d’être est donc de lutter ; on ne possède vraiment que ce qu’on acquiert en combattant. »Ernst Jünger
    La Guerre notre Mère (Der Kampf als inneres Erlebnis), 1922, trad. Jean Dahel, éditions Albin Michel, 1934

  20. #280

    Default Re: USA Federal shutdown. What's happening?

    Best to ignore the troll.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •