 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 23:21:32 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> I use a simpler method. Being a socialist I remember the difference by
> saying "Rabid Republicans and Decent Democrats". Although by my lights
> even the Democrats are mostly more right wing than our Conservatives. I
> hope that, that's not too offensive but it serves to remind me. You
> could say "Right on Republicans and Decadent Democrats" if you want
LOL, I like that, and yes, our "left wing" democrats are far more
conservative than those in Europe....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> The politics of the 'net in the US was my read. It helps to know that
> Ron Paul was on the Republican ticket and is still running for president
> but with a different party.
Actually, no. He ran, and continued running even when there was 0
chance of him getting the ticket (i.e. after McCain clinched the
nomination). However, he did drop out and is not running at all. He did
endorse the Constitution Party, though.
--
Hipatitis: Terminal coolness.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 20:54:32 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> The politics of the 'net in the US was my read. It helps to know that
>> Ron Paul was on the Republican ticket and is still running for
>> president but with a different party.
>
> Actually, no. He ran, and continued running even when there was 0
> chance of him getting the ticket (i.e. after McCain clinched the
> nomination). However, he did drop out and is not running at all. He did
> endorse the Constitution Party, though.
Hmmm, I could've sworn I saw his name on the early voting ballot here in
Utah, but looking at the county clerk's office website, it seems I was
mistaken.
Looks like he's on a couple of ballots, though - Montana's Constitution
Party replaced Chuck Baldwin with Ron Paul; apparently he changed his
mind on Sept 11 (he didn't object as long as he didn't have to declare
initially), and it sounds like from what I was able to find that the
ballot will go out with his name on it. It sounds like he's also on the
Louisiana ballot as the "Louisiana Taxpayers Party". That also
apparently is without his consent, though.
He's not on in enough states to actually win, though.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02-Nov-08 1:05, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 23:37:22 +0100, andrel wrote:
>
>> What helps for me is that
>> democrats put the need of the people first (or at least they suggest
>> that) while republicans put the need of the nation first (assuming that
>> the interest of themselves coincides with the interest of the nation).
>
> That's an interesting perspective - but it implies that the Democrats do
> not put the needs of the nation first; I think you could sum the ideology
> up by saying that the Democrats put the needs of the nation first, but
> define the nation as the sum of its people. The Republicans put the
> needs of the nation first, but (at least economically) the belief there
> is that if they take care of the upper class, the rest will take care of
> itself. (But I know that'll draw some flack from people in that party
> over that definition as well).
That may or may not be more true than my rule of thumb, but it almost
destroys
democrat <-> people/voters
republican <-> nation
For me the main value is that I do not live in the US, so the party
lines have not been part of my upbringing. The problem for me (and
possibly Andy, although it could also be his habit of living under
stones) is that in my country the two concepts are not mutual exclusive.
Indeed our republicans are republicans *because* they are fundamentalist
democrats. Still, when I want to guess which party in the US wants to
reform the medical system and which one is most likely to start a war,
it helps a lot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> ...then I'm guessing it also helps to know what a "republican" is too.
>>
> I had a problem remembering who was who too. What helps for me is that
> democrats put the need of the people first (or at least they suggest
> that) while republicans put the need of the nation first (assuming that
> the interest of themselves coincides with the interest of the nation).
> From this it is not hard to infer that Clinton and Obama are democrats
> whereas the Bushes, Reagan and McCain are republicans. I hope that helps.
Heh. I never did comprehend the whole left wing/right wing thing. I just
tend to think that all politicians are inherantly power-hungry, lying,
cheating, manipulative, evil scum. It's a very simple thing to remember. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 11:38:22 +0000, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>Heh. I never did comprehend the whole left wing/right wing thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_politics
>I just
>tend to think that all politicians are inherantly power-hungry, lying,
>cheating, manipulative, evil scum. It's a very simple thing to remember. ;-)
Mostly true but beware idealists :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Heh. I never did comprehend the whole left wing/right wing thing.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_politics
Um... ouch?
>> I just
>> tend to think that all politicians are inherantly power-hungry, lying,
>> cheating, manipulative, evil scum. It's a very simple thing to remember. ;-)
>
> Mostly true but beware idealists :)
Heh. I thought those were extinct now?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02-Nov-08 12:38, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> ...then I'm guessing it also helps to know what a "republican" is too.
>>>
>> I had a problem remembering who was who too. What helps for me is that
>> democrats put the need of the people first (or at least they suggest
>> that) while republicans put the need of the nation first (assuming
>> that the interest of themselves coincides with the interest of the
>> nation).
>> From this it is not hard to infer that Clinton and Obama are
>> democrats whereas the Bushes, Reagan and McCain are republicans. I
>> hope that helps.
>
> Heh. I never did comprehend the whole left wing/right wing thing.
left/right does not really describe it fully. Not even in the US.
> I just tend to think that all politicians are inherently power-hungry,
> lying, cheating, manipulative, evil scum.
No that are just the ones you see on the TV. These are the ones that
either got a top position by being power hungry or are incompetent
enough to hit the headlines before they got there. Still most of the
politicians are motivated and more or less competent. Unfortunately you
have your scum at any level, so even the local politicians (and
professors, managers, bankers... for that matter) will seem to be all
corrupt.
> It's a very simple thing to remember.
That will not make it easy to vote. I assume you don't do that.
>;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02-Nov-08 12:57, Stephen wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 11:38:22 +0000, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>> Heh. I never did comprehend the whole left wing/right wing thing.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_politics
>
>
I am confused by the headings
Modern international use of the terms
versus
Modern U.S. use of the terms
Did I miss something?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Heh. I never did comprehend the whole left wing/right wing thing.
> left/right does not really describe it fully. Not even in the US.
As I understand it, it's only meant to be a first-level summary.
>> I just tend to think that all politicians are inherently power-hungry,
>> lying, cheating, manipulative, evil scum.
> No that are just the ones you see on the TV.
Heh, maybe you're right.
>> It's a very simple thing to remember.
> That will not make it easy to vote. I assume you don't do that.
No. When all politicians are equally evil, it doesn't seem to matter
which one you pick.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
