\/\/0RF said:
I'm not implying that, just that we have a lot to work on.
Hal:
Compared to Europe our left is way right.
For those U.S. BuF'ers moving to another country post here
- Thread starter tool
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
I'm not implying that, just that we have a lot to work on.
Hal:
Compared to Europe our left is way right.
BillyBadAss said:
Well, good thing we aren't Europe.
As far as I'm concerned, we shouldn't be trying to emulate other countries. We should be worried about sticking to the Constitution that got us where we are. THAT'S where the true "center" of American politics should be.
No, but staying to fight isn't such a hot idea, either. The U.S. seems to be heading steadily towards a fascist theocracy, and it doesn't appear very likely that any opposition would get very far at this point. Much as I hate to say it, things are going to have to get much worse before people actually set aside their apathy, their capitalistic greed, their blind faith in the media, their misplaced religious support of a hypocritical administration, etc.hal said:
The only kind of opposition that might make a difference at this point -- the written word, making people aware of the problems with Bush and his government -- can be done just as easily from outside the country as it can from the inside. Any other kind of opposition, especially violent opposition or civil disobedience, will almost certainly fail under the current political climate.
I don't really think so many people would be angry if there was someone else representing right-wing to vote for who won. I think many people just think Bush is genuinely a bad president who is hurtful to the country and others.
I probably worded that really wrong. Basicly i have a theory less people would be pissed about republican's winning if they had a different representative than Bush. If they had a republican that was more like traditional republicans people wouldn't be as angry.
I hope people understand what i mean
Surely all you people who voted Bush would prefer someone else representing his party than well... him?
I probably worded that really wrong. Basicly i have a theory less people would be pissed about republican's winning if they had a different representative than Bush. If they had a republican that was more like traditional republicans people wouldn't be as angry.
I hope people understand what i mean
Surely all you people who voted Bush would prefer someone else representing his party than well... him?
Last edited by a moderator:
True Dat.Tapeworm said:
Well, youve got to understand that where I come from, "socialist" political parties are called "The Labour Party", "The Socialist Party", "The Workers Party" and "The Socialist Workers Party". They have openly socialist and social democrat ideologies, have historical marxist/leninist founders, and are open about their influences and inspirations, and are often the political wing of labour unions. The left is much more clearly defined. Even the popular tradionalist "christian democrat party" (Fianna Fail) has "leftist" leanings. So its a different political spectrum, with many small and larger parties spanning the divide. The fact that government is PR elected means that these small parties are often neccessary for coalition makes things interesting too.Hal said:
Okay, yeah, we equate Socialism here in the US with the fringe left-wing. Mainly because we are a Republic founded on the principal of the strong individual lifting the masses. To each his own and all...MetalMickey said:
Tapeworm said:
Yes they would, they'd croak and die. George Bush is a pretty moderate Republican.
Yeah, right. Hey, would this be a bad time to point out that Bush is not eligible to run for the Presidency for the rest of his life, and I'm not aware of a single person in his administration who plans to run in the future. So how is this supposed fascism sustained over time?qazix said:
And if you think conservatives have blind faith - really, any faith - in the media, it's little wonder that you understand so little of the people wth whom you disagree.
Or you could organize a vote to change the governing powers. That's exactly what the other side of the aisle did after being gang-raped by Democrat-run legislatures for six decades. The Founders set that up as a means to affect change WITHOUT violence.
Here are some recommendations to start with:
- no more fat filmmakers who can't tell the truth from a hole in the wall
- viable candidates (hint: try finding one that lies less) (see also: Barack Obama)
- laying off the intellectual superiority complex would be a nice change. You make with the "people who actually HAVE a brain would see everything my way" enough times, and eventually you get tuned out. Take it from someone who's spent the last two days listening to "liberals are better with the budget, liberals care more about people, liberals are better at this, liberals are better at that, blah blah blah" That tells me that this is no longer about making one's voice heard, it's become a power struggle.
- to expand on that, Liberals in politics want to REGAIN CONTROL so they can SET THE AGENDA. Two parties fighting for control are just going to be pulling the country in one of two directions, rather than working together to solve real problems.
- lay off the invective. People like me have our own opinions, and our own reasons for having them, and they don't all fit in that neat little box you like to shove us in. Hint: you don't settle differences of opinion by calling people hateful racist Nazis. Just a thought.
Now the Republican party needs to do some retooling as well, this roller coaster will end for them eventually, and if they forget where they came from, they're going to get their asses stomped into oblivion and never given a voice in politics so long as Democrats hold the reins. And until a viable third party comes along that people like me can get behind, the best option is to try and hold the party accountable. When I put my vote behind Bush, there were a lot of caveats with it. You have my vote, BUT you'd better quit screwing around in Iraq and crush these bastards so we can go home. You have my vote, BUT you'd better quit submarining the budget, and you'd better be telling the truth about social security.
Frankly, I expect Bush will be more apt to reach across the aisle this time. Presidents always have this "thing" about needing a "legacy", and Bush doesn't want his legacy to be a tax cut, an education bill and six years of garbage. And he knows he won't be able to accomplish anything by wrestling ad infinitum with Democrats. If he wants results, he's going to have to learn the art of compromise. At least I have a Senator who's working to square the budget.
So how is this going to go? Are we going to both work to fix the system (and yes, it's the system that needs fixing because both sides have myriad problems) or get more parties involved, or follow the lead of political leaders and just flame each other while they walk off with all the trappings of power?
qazix said:
1) I was talking about the basic principles laid out by the men who created the founding documents. Not George Bush. Read the founding documents and go find your own links.
2) George W. Bush is no more an ultra-right wing extremist than Taco Bell is a fine dining establishment. He's liberal with his social programs, spends money like a maniac, and signs poor legislation like the McCain/Feingold bill that is of dubious Constitutionality. He fits into the conservative mold mainly in his moral values, tax cuts, and tough defense.
You guys that are crying "extremist" either aren't paying close attention or you are looking at it from the far left point of view. Believe me, conservatives are none to happy with some of the things that he did, but had a look at the opposition and saw only the far left.
BillyBadAss said:Ok, but the minute you suggest we go on an all night romp of 14 year old girls dressed in sailor fuku, I'm out of there.
Nawh don't worry, I might suggest we hit the saki and get wasted, but that's about it.
By the same method any other popular political policies and trends are sustanied; via the party duopoly. I don't foresee any third parties actually defeating the status quo in my lifetime, short of a revolution.\/\/0RF said:
I don't see conservatives acting to conserve this nation's policies -- you know, those same policies that Bush & Co. have trampled under foot these last four years.
Policies like THE FIRST AMENDMENT:
Bush establishing "faith-based initiatives" certainly doesn't seem to comply with the spirit of the 1st Amendment. His attempts at shoving his religious beliefs down our throats (abortion bad, homosexual marriage bad, ...) don't seem to, either. Why aren't conservatives up in arms trying to conserve our First Amendment rights? Our rights are not being respected.
Who cares what the Founders did? Both major parties have a history of ... well, ignoring history.
Obama is refreshingly enthusiastic, I'll give him that. However, I'm not willing to concede that he is the path to a brighter, better future... After all, he is a Christian, just as Bush claims to be. My personal respect for Christians took a nosedive after I witnessed so many of them supporting Bush. The same Bush that seems to comply with their beliefs only when it is convenient for him to do so.
Don't mistake me, I'm not anti-Christian; I'm anti-George W. Bush. I will similarly oppose anyone who tries to apply their own religious beliefs to a government that was founded on the principle of separating church and state.
It looks like we agree insofar as neither major party is on the right track to a better future. Regardless, I believe that four more years of Bush is totally unacceptable. Kerry sucks too, but at least he seems like a less dangerous idiot than George W.
As for your supposition that Bush & Co. will become more moderate and conciliatory... I don't buy that. His extreme supporters won't allow that.
You and Obama can go ahead and try to fix the system. I'll go ahead and watch from afar.
Ross Perot turned the election upside-down in 1992. All people need is a viable choice.qazix said:
Probably because you see the nation through the lens of an agenda forwarded by only one party since the Great Depression...
He's acknowledging a very real practicality, many of these charities are far better stewards of money and donations than the gov't... and much more effective in reaching those who need help. Meanwhile, do you think the "spirit" of the First Amendment was being observed when Congress began every single session with a prayer, even before we were a nation? Or when Thomas Jefferson, as a school superintendent, made the Bible a required text in schools?
We're a little pre-occupied at the moment trying to preserve human life....
That is evidence of a systemic problem, not a Bush problem.
He's no Ted Kennedy, either... and you have to admit there is currently a HUGE chunk of America that simply is not buying what they are selling.
60 million people don't see it your way. And the Dems are going to continue to get hammered until they figure out why. So far, the best the pundits can figure is that it's humanity's fault for not being the shining beacons of genius that they are.
You don't have to. That's just my opinion. Do I look like a mind reader or fortune teller?
The fact that you call James Dobson extreme, explains much. In the meantime, you should consider acknowledging there are other, good people in this country that have their own ideas about how this country should go, and are tired of being marginalized in this manner. Your implication that other opinions are mere examples of extremism to be suppressed bespeaks the withdrawal symptoms so many seem to be suffering today because their boy isn't running the show. Is this really all about power, and letting the few set the course for the masses? Isn't that what W is always being decried for?
I never said Obama was the fix. I'm not his lackey any more than I am Bush's. The only reason I singled him out is that he is an example of someone who realizes that government is there to serve the people.You and Obama can go ahead and try to fix the system. I'll go ahead and watch from afar.
Last edited:
I don't know; you be the judge. I hope that you don't view PBS as some kind of liberal stronghold...\/\/0RF said:
Jefferson and Prayer in Public Schools
Thomas Jefferson and his Bible
I'm not going to get into this one...
Maybe.
Last edited:
Compared to southamerica too.BillyBadAss said:
It´s good that the US is not messing around with our internal politics as it used to do (you know, organising military coups, supporting right-wing dictators, etc.), now it just uses the IMF, or funds lobby groups.
Now we can have the leaders we think we need and the results are good so far (compared to when we had right-wing governments).
Venezuela: left (anti-american)
Brazil: center-left
Uruguay: left (recently elected)
Chile: center-left
Argentina: center-left
And our economies growing slow, but steady.
I'm not sure what your point is here. I never made a subject of prayer in schools. And to the best of my knowledge, people are still "free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion". And regardless of his personal writings on the Bible, the fact remains: Thomas Jefferson was the first President of the Washington D.C. school board which adopted the Bible as a primary reader. (superintendent was a semantic error)qazix said:I don't know; you be the judge. I hope that you don't view PBS as some kind of liberal stronghold...
Jefferson and Prayer in Public Schools
Thomas Jefferson and his Bible
Whether or not you do, the fact remains that we have a voice in this as well, and you're not going to win over any new support by marginalizing that voice.
Sounds like you're reluctant to admit problems on your side of the aisle. It's something we are both going to have to address if we don't want both parties to spiral out of control (which as an added consequence will prevent the rise of third parties for decades, a rise which I feel would be a welcome power check on both parties).
Ferd said:
The sooner you stop blaming everyone else for your countries problems the better. Previous Argentinian goverments had as much a hand in your economy cockup as anyone else.
GeneticFreak
evolves and survives
PsychoMoggieBagpuss said:
Indeed SS is great. Just be careful, shabu-shabu is also another name for crystal meth in asia
As you all know Bush won the election. This is bad and we are all sure the country is going down the drain, or atleast for four years. So until it all blows over, some of us need a European or Canadian BuF'er to take us in.
I perfer Europe personally. In real life i'm a quiet person and doesn't need much. So please take me!
Just post here explaining why a BuF'er from another country should take you into their home for the next four years.
the next four years arent going to be THAT bad, but it is funny how many people keep saying they will leave the country.
I'm sorry I have to bump this post, mainly because of the Spoiler that was included. It's been 8 years since this post, and guess what? It really is that bad.
I feel worse for those thinking moving to europe would make it better.