Numbers_sl
shitlord
- 4,054
- 3
To clarify, I was saying that corporations and the very rich don't care which way things go in the abortion debate; it doesn't affect them directly. Fiscal and regulatory policies are what they care about and spend money to influence.If you mean abortion as wedge issue sure, but to say its not big business is being naive. Both the pro-choice and pro-life lobbies are big money. Everyone complains about wedge issues but for a lot of folks those are the only issues they feel will actually impact their lives.
I actually edited out that line but, mostly his failure to deliver on practically anything he ever said he would do. His only value is keeping the fucking nutjobs the Republicans have put up as candidates out of office.Why is Obama a joke Kreugen?
I wish we had a real leftist party just so I could see your salty fuckin tears. Instead we have a right wing and a centrist party.LOL -- the ideologies of the two parties you mention are diametrically opposed on nearly every substantive issue.
Also a hearty LMFAO at the people declaring the democratic party centrist and thus identifying themselves as centrist rather than democrat. Does this deception actually work on themselves? Cause you can be damn sure it doesnt work on anyone outside their fantasy worlds.
The Democratic Party in 2013 is not centrist, or even liberal, but rather Leftist.
Gun control and socialized healthcare is not centrist.I wish we had a real leftist party just so I could see your salty fuckin tears. Instead we have a right wing and a centrist party.
In every other developed country on the planet, they are.Gun control and socialized healthcare is not centrist.
Just let him live in the bubble it's not like anything we say sinks in. If Rush or Fox doesn't say it's true we'll....In every other developed country on the planet, they are.
http://www.americanprogressaction.or...sus-obamacare/Just a few years ago, this approach was not at all controversial among conservatives. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, first proposed an individual mandate in 1989(THE FUCKING 80s MAN wtf?!). Its authors recognized that "each household has the obligation, to the extent it is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself."(mandate = personal responsibility and no tax increase, these guys are clever)
Conservative economists also proposed a mandate as part of a plan that "supports and makes use of competitive markets" and "avoids relying on the public tax or expenditure systems whenever possible." In 1993 Sen. John Chafee (R-RI)-along with 18 Republican co-sponsors-introduced legislation that included a mandate as an alternative to the Clinton administration health reform plan." And in 2005 the George W. Bush administration agreed to waive certain Medicaid rules to give Massachusetts the funding and flexibility to operate Romneycare. When the waiver was up for renewal in 2008, President Bush again signed off on the policy.
Asking questions is the beginning of wisdom.What defines the center? [/ATTACH]
To be fairgun control(for example today's laws in the majority of US states) is centrist policy. Completegun banswould be extreme policy. The spectrum would be something like this:Gun control is not centrist.
ThisTo be fairgun control(for example today's laws in the majority of US states) is centrist policy. Completegun banswould be extreme policy. The spectrum would be something like this:
extreme policy: no gun laws, you can own a grenade launcher and automatic weapons, no permits
...
...
centrist policy: you can own semi-automatic weapons, permit and background checks, felons disallowed the privilege
...
...
extreme policy: complete gun ban
The ACA is nearly an exact replica that was introduced by Bob Dole in the 90s. It was also put together by the Heritage Foundation. All liberal institutions. So you're right at least with half of that.Gun control and socialized healthcare is not centrist.
Yeah what the left is promoting is what you label as extreme policy, complete ban of a certain class of weapons. The right is promoting actually enforcing the existing laws, which you labeled centrist. So using your definitions additional gun control that the left is trying to force on us is not centrist.To be fairgun control(for example today's laws in the majority of US states) is centrist policy. Completegun banswould be extreme policy. The spectrum would be something like this:
extreme policy: no gun laws, you can own a grenade launcher and automatic weapons, no permits
...
...
centrist policy: you can own semi-automatic weapons, permit and background checks, felons disallowed the privilege
...
...
extreme policy: complete gun ban
Except that's a load of bullshit.Yeah what the left is promoting is what you label as extreme policy, complete ban of a certain class of weapons. The right is promoting actually enforcing the existing laws, which you labeled centrist. So using your definitions additional gun control that the left is trying to force on us is not centrist.
Anarchy means no government. A more neutral term (because 'anarchy' has been tarnished) is voluntarism, or simply "a stateless society". Interesting that you say that the world is in a state of anarchy, I see where the comparison stems from because each nation exists in a way that it believes best. However, anarchy is about individual-liberty, which can't exist in a democracy, autocracy, or any other taxonomy of governance. In democracy, the majority forces their opinion onto the minority in the form of legislation; in autocracy the minority forces their opinion onto the majority, etc. The only form of society where no one forces their opinion onto anyone else would be anarchy.I've always wanted to ask an anarchist what the deal was. In International relations, depending on the lens one uses to explain and predict global events, some people view the world as in a state of anarchy, but I don't think it is the same kind of anarchy that your typical anarchist believes in, which is why I wanted to interrogate someone like you. What's the deal with anarchy?
Can you explain how this would work in practice? I would love to hear some thoughts on the practical application of a system completely devoid of oversight/penalties.Anarchy means no government. A more neutral term (because 'anarchy' has been tarnished) is voluntarism, or simply "a stateless society". Interesting that you say that the world is in a state of anarchy, I see where the comparison stems from because each nation exists in a way that it believes best. However, anarchy is about individual-liberty, which can't exist in a democracy, autocracy, or any other taxonomy of governance. In democracy, the majority forces their opinion onto the minority in the form of legislation; in autocracy the minority forces their opinion onto the majority, etc. The only form of society where no one forces their opinion onto anyone else would be anarchy.
Edit: just a quick note on political parties: the reason most anarchists that vote tend to vote libertarian is because it usually has the candidate who wants the least amount of governance. However, most anarchists don't vote at all because they see it as legitimizing the government in the first place. "It is effectively an endorsement of centralized power and a vote of no confidence in localism." There's basically debate among anarchists about whether or not anarchy is more likely to be achieved via an intellectual or political revolution.