What party do you belong to or affiliate with

Big E
Big E's picture
Posts: 129
Joined: 2009-11-05
User is offlineOffline
What party do you belong to or affiliate with

What political party or system do you affiliate with and why. And what do you think makes it superior to other systems.

I'm a member of the Libertarian party with a big L.


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Democrat, only because I

Democrat, only because I want to vote in a primary and thus far they offer the least offensive candidates of the two major parties.

 

Otherwise all political parties fail to work, IMHO, as ideology has no place in the discussion of reality.

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
The Australian Greens

 

It's my favourite colour.

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Big E
Big E's picture
Posts: 129
Joined: 2009-11-05
User is offlineOffline
Deadly Fingergun

Deadly Fingergun wrote:

Democrat, only because I want to vote in a primary and thus far they offer the least offensive candidates of the two major parties.

 

Otherwise all political parties fail to work, IMHO, as ideology has no place in the discussion of reality.

So you're one of those that's stuck in the 2 party frame of mind?


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Big E wrote:So you're one of

Big E wrote:
So you're one of those that's stuck in the 2 party frame of mind?
What a daft assumption.

You do know that a party has to be active to a certain level in a locale to have a primary, right? You also know the smaller parties aren't active to those levels everywhere?

I vote for candidates based on their claimed ideas about how to fulfill the duties of the given office. Thank goodness for alternatives to the Dems and Repubs.

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


Unrepentant_Elitist
Science Freak
Unrepentant_Elitist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2009-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Hello Big E,Having read the

Hello Big E,

Having read the forum entitled “Why Libertarianism fails,” perhaps I am opening myself up to innumerable slings and arrows. However, I have been a registered Libertarian for the past 15 years. Having said as much, I do not subscribe to every platform statement ever uttered by the party. Rather, I have chosen Libertarianism for admittedly selfish reasons: it is the party that advocates the least amount of interference with my person and property. To argue that its central tenets are infallible is intellectually dishonest; to argue that it conversely represents unmitigated evil is a similarly generalized fallacy.

With this in mind, I recognize that my politics are both outside the mainstream view and intensely personal (which is why I declined to post in the aforementioned forum). Nevertheless, my decision to select a political party that was closest to my own values was, in my opinion, an honest one. I hold no illusions that a Libertarian candidate will be elected to a major political office in my lifetime. However, I have enjoyed the distinct pleasure of never having to hold my nose when entering the voting booth.      

 


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Closest immediate

Closest immediate description?

 

Socialist Technocrat

 

(nobody saw that coming)


Big E
Big E's picture
Posts: 129
Joined: 2009-11-05
User is offlineOffline
Deadly Fingergun wrote:Big E

Deadly Fingergun wrote:

Big E wrote:
So you're one of those that's stuck in the 2 party frame of mind?
What a daft assumption.

You do know that a party has to be active to a certain level in a locale to have a primary, right? You also know the smaller parties aren't active to those levels everywhere?

I vote for candidates based on their claimed ideas about how to fulfill the duties of the given office. Thank goodness for alternatives to the Dems and Repubs.

I wasn't really making an assumption, hence the question mark at the end of the sentence. I was asking for a clarification of what you had stated. And of course I know all of the things that you have mentioned, I'm not stupid.


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Big E wrote:I wasn't really

Big E wrote:
I wasn't really making an assumption, hence the question mark at the end of the sentence. I was asking for a clarification of what you had stated. And of course I know all of the things that you have mentioned, I'm not stupid.
Nice backpedal.


 

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2406
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
met a few Mainers like that

Big E wrote:

What political party or system do you affiliate with and why. And what do you think makes it superior to other systems.

I'm a member of the Libertarian party with a big L.

 

 

           Growing up in Brewer {yeah I'm a Witch} I was a big fan of Ed Muskie & Bill Cohan, not sure what that makes me,  never voted though; not a citizen, In Canada where I do vote I'm a conservative.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
 I vote for whoever makes

 I vote for whoever makes more sense with their economic, social views. At times it's been the liberals (although living in Ontario for the past 18 years has made me never want to vote liberal again) I have voted for conservatives, NDP and the Green party. Again it all depends on who is on the bill and what their stance are on various social and economic views....and if none of them make sense I vote green because they won't get in.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
"What political party or

"What political party or system do you affiliate with and why."

Libertarian. They are the closest party to my personal beliefs. I'll vote for a candidate of any party if they seem like they'll decrease the size of my bloated California state government or if they seem to be the candidate with the least desire to further assault my liberties. So I tend to side with small government conservatives (ie. the real conservatives) and libertarians. That tends to mean I'm screwed in California elections though. The Democrats win a lot of elected positions almost by default and our Republicans are some form of perverse left-wing tax-raising Republican. I shit you not, California Republicans have voted to raise taxes even though our state has the most extreme tax burden of any state in the Union. The whole two party mentality is stupid in general and is extra stupid in my state. I do like most of the Libertarian parties platforms though. I suspect that I will be voting for a particular Republican next election for Governor. He has single mindedly devoted himself to slashing government expenditures. He is gutting the California insurance bureaucracy rather than let them piss off any more tax payer dollars. Those bureaucracies and their gigantic public employee unions infuriate me. A small government conservate or a classical liberal is what my state desperatly needs.

 

The Doomed Soul wrote:

Closest immediate description?

 

Socialist Technocrat

 

(nobody saw that coming)

Like the Ixians from the "Dune" series? If that is the case, you might be the most badass socialist that I have heard of.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
 Conservative Democrat

 Conservative Democrat waiting for all the bigotted Fundie Christians to get the fuck out of the Republican party.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Conservative Democrat waiting for all the bigotted Fundie Christians to get the fuck out of the Republican party.
I hope you're not holding your breath.


 

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:The

Jormungander wrote:

The Doomed Soul wrote:

Closest immediate description?

 

Socialist Technocrat

 

(nobody saw that coming)

Like the Ixians from the "Dune" series? If that is the case, you might be the most badass socialist that I have heard of.

 

Ahhhhh good times... good times

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15352

 

That entire spat, still makes me giggle  

I wish Mohammed would come back... he was fun

 

What Would Kharn Do?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13829
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Socially I am for equal

Socially I am for equal rights and rights for all. I am for gay marriage. I am for gays serving in the military. I am for gun rights(within reason) I don't think you need to stockpile them as if the end of the world is comming. But if you are law abiding, you should be able to own one for hunting or protection. I am against the death penalty only because our system favors the prosecution's funding vs public defense (otherwise you'd have to be OJ to defend yourself).

I like the "limited government" theory in principle, but in practice money, in all forms of government around the world, equals power and those who have it have power. Our open market can be abused and is being abused as much as the Saudies, in their closed market mentally abuse their citizens by selling the rest of the world oil so they can maintain sheepish loyalty.

HOWEVER, what we have in the west IS far better than what North Korea has or Saudi Arabia has. Abuse in any system happens. But what we have here is ability to change things . Women can vote, blacks are no longer slaves and gays increasingly are becoming more and more of the main stream.

I cant be pinned down to one political label. I don't want government prying into my life. I don't want more taxes for the sake of propping up a mushrooming government. I am not against more taxes, merely efficiency in good pragmatic use of whatever we may pay for. I see both parties increasingly failing to be efficient.

I think government should not be into classism which it is. I think both parties, DEMS sell to the poor and Republicans sell to the rich and pit each class against each other, rather than fostering the idea that the more we do things on our own outside government the less expensive it would be.

I think before we build new beurocracies, and instead of building more new ones, we should fix what we already have. Homeland Security is a joke and what will we do in 20 years, add a new agency to oversee that?

I think big business has both parties in it's pocket and I think they could give a ratts ass less how the cost of living for the lowest paid and middle class are increasingly impossible for more and more people to maintain. There is no reason a doctor's visit should cost so much. There is no reason a pill should cost so much. There is no reason heath insurance should cost so much. I simply think the business class, mega business, not mom an pop shops, just the big Wall Street fat cats, don't give a shit about the other classes.

I am not against wealth, but jadedness and greed and projectionism. I think it is wrong for people to judge Paris Hilton for being lucky enough to be born with money. If you want to judge her for being an airhead, that is a separate issue.

Jut it is just as wrong for people like Rush to condemn someone who is old, who has a low paying job. To me, it is a matter of all classes being in this together, and if you are lucky enough to be financially supported by someone, great. But as long as anyone has an honest job, no matter how small, the rich should not look down upon them. Without the middle or poor class the rich would have nobody to do the work or buy their products.

I don't know what label you could call me. I don't like the political correctness and demands of censorship the left wants in ending bigotry. But I do like the idea that they want more for the middle and poor than the right does. I do not like the right in that they think, at least in America only fans of Jesus have the right to compete politically which is a LIE and why Joe Lieberman(jew) and Keith Elleson(Muslim) and Pete Stark(atheist) all serve in our congress because of "no religious test".

Where do I lean? Mind your own business, do your own thing, be an individual. I am for pragmatism. I would not vote for an atheist if they support censorship laws banning people from saying atheists love Hitler. I would only vote for someone who seeks the same common law and issues that trancend. We all want jobs. We all want food. We all want affordable health care and we all like to bitch.

I am all over the map because it depends on the topic, not the party.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Big E
Big E's picture
Posts: 129
Joined: 2009-11-05
User is offlineOffline
Deadly Fingergun wrote:Big E

Deadly Fingergun wrote:

Big E wrote:
I wasn't really making an assumption, hence the question mark at the end of the sentence. I was asking for a clarification of what you had stated. And of course I know all of the things that you have mentioned, I'm not stupid.
Nice backpedal.

 

 

Call it what you want bro, it really doesn't matter to me.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I am for gun

Brian37 wrote:

I am for gun rights(within reason) I don't think you need to stockpile them as if the end of the world is comming. But if you are law abiding, you should be able to own one for hunting or protection.

So you are moderately anti-gun rights. If you mean to say that you wish there were laws that restricted gun ownership to one gun per person and even then only if the person is law abiding, then you are anti-gun rights in my opinion. I break copyright and traffic laws every day. I'm not exaggerating, but I don't go 24 hours without breaking the law at least four times thanks to a pair of traffic laws that I ignore. I don't hunt and I own three guns. I suppose that the handgun serves a defensive purpose, but the shotgun and the rifle are just for fun. The whole point of gun rights is that, if it is a right, gun owners wouldn't have to justify gun ownership with a hunting or defensive purpose and be limited in the number of guns that they own.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13829
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Brian37

Jormungander wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I am for gun rights(within reason) I don't think you need to stockpile them as if the end of the world is comming. But if you are law abiding, you should be able to own one for hunting or protection.

So you are moderately anti-gun rights. If you mean to say that you wish there were laws that restricted gun ownership to one gun per person and even then only if the person is law abiding, then you are anti-gun rights in my opinion. I break copyright and traffic laws every day. I'm not exaggerating, but I don't go 24 hours without breaking the law at least four times thanks to a pair of traffic laws that I ignore. I don't hunt and I own three guns. I suppose that the handgun serves a defensive purpose, but the shotgun and the rifle are just for fun. The whole point of gun rights is that, if it is a right, gun owners wouldn't have to justify gun ownership with a hunting or defensive purpose and be limited in the number of guns that they own.

Ok, if that is how you want to portray my position? So if all rights are absolute, or should be, then we should be able to sell porn to children because porn is legal. What if you lived next to a religious nut who owned 20 ak47s who constantly spouted from his porch how much he hated atheists?

With all rights, there still is no such thing as a utopia and in civil open, pluralistic, societies regulations will occur. Otherwise you either have a fascist state where the government tells you when to shit and watches your every move, or you have total anarchy. I am not for either.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13829
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Just like having speed

Just like having speed limits on highways is a regulation it is not a ban on cars.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Deadly Fingergun wrote:

Democrat, only because I want to vote in a primary and thus far they offer the least offensive candidates of the two major parties. 

 

Otherwise all political parties fail to work, IMHO, as ideology has no place in the discussion of reality.

 

This. Unfortunately it is the "big tent" party with a lot of people after different things. They are not anti-gay, and are not Jesus obsessed..as well as being the more fiscally responsible of the two parties in practice.

 

This instantly makes them more appealing to me.

 

I'll be going with them. You can't cut taxes and increase spending all day. There has to be some kind of accountability.

 

I believe though in a social democracy, where capitalism works for private goods and public goods belong to society. 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:What if you

Brian37 wrote:

What if you lived next to a religious nut who owned 20 ak47s who constantly spouted from his porch how much he hated atheists?

Both of those things are protected rights. The 1st and 2nd ammendements secure his rights to free speech and gun ownership. There is, not even a half mile from my house, a store that specializes in selling AR15s and AK47s. My state tried banning both of those guns. Our state supreme court overturned the bans, because gun ownership is a right that is beyond my state's legitimate ability to restrict. I live in the most anti-gun state in the Union, and even here our state courts strike down laws infringe upon our ability to bear arms. Most convictions produced by violations of our assault weapons ban are overturned, because state appeals courts refuse to uphold that law. If one of my neighbors wanted to, they could legally own as many AK47s as they wanted to and they could legally announce their hatred of atheists every day. I see no problem with either of things.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Jormungander wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

What if you lived next to a religious nut who owned 20 ak47s who constantly spouted from his porch how much he hated atheists?

Both of those things are protected rights. The 1st and 2nd ammendements secure his rights to free speech and gun ownership. There is, not even a half mile from my house, a store that specializes in selling AR15s and AK47s. My state tried banning both of those guns. Our state supreme court overturned the bans, because gun ownership is a right that is beyond my state's legitimate ability to restrict. I live in the most anti-gun state in the Union, and even here our state courts strike down laws infringe upon our ability to bear arms. Most convictions produced by violations of our assault weapons ban are overturned, because state appeals courts refuse to uphold that law. If one of my neighbors wanted to, they could legally own as many AK47s as they wanted to and they could legally announce their hatred of atheists every day. I see no problem with either of things.

 

What does the 2nd amendment state exactly? Could you possibly be taking it out of context?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10723
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
None. I would also like to

None. I would also like to see party systems abolished.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:What does the

ClockCat wrote:

What does the 2nd amendment state exactly? Could you possibly be taking it out of context?

According to the US Supreme Court in their Heller v. D.C opinion, the 2nd Ammendment states that private gun ownership is a fundamental right. The Supreme Court claims that the second ammendment's justification for enshrining this right is based on the defensive uses that guns hold. If you know of some context that negates the Surpreme Court's interpretation, please tell me.

Luckly for us the Court's recent opinion on the 2nd Ammendment reaffirms the fact that it is only about private gun ownership. So if you want to own 40 AK47s, go for it. Your state and the federal government lack the legitimate authority to stop you. They may only check to see that you aren't a felon and ask that you wait a maximum of 10 days before getting a gun after the purchase has been made. Felons and children are the only ones denied second ammendment rights. The logic is that felons and children can't be trusted to vote, so they can't be trusted with a gun. I don't agree with that, but felons are stripped of otherwise inalienable rights. So it makes sense in the sense that felons don't have their rights respected by the government like everyone else does.

I'de really like to hear what kind of context you are thinking the 2nd Ammendment has. I wonder if it contradicts the Supreme Court's interpretation of gun ownership by private individuals justified by the defensive uses of firearms. Keep in mind that according to Federal law, all adult males are members of the militia. So trying to tie gun rights to militia service won't work. I am a member of the militia even though I haven't joined the National Guard or some other government administrated militia; and completely unrelated to that, I get to own guns.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Family_Guy
Family_Guy's picture
Posts: 110
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
To answer the OP - I'm a

To answer the OP - I'm a member of the Socialist party.

I believe it is a government's job and role to be protective of society.  I get irritated by right-wing nuts who claim that the government is 'evil', that they are being 'taxed to death', and that civil liberties are being taken away one by one.

I don't understand how someone can claim to love their country and then break as many laws as possible, or cheat on their taxes.  Libertarians, by and large, sound like people who want to be correct theoretically but have zero practical application for their bullshit politics.  Taxes pay for the country you live in, the roads you drive on, the schools your children are educated in, all while you complain about the tax rate (which is still one of the lowest of any industrialized nation).

I may have Libertarians pegged incorrectly, but they seem to be people who dislike authority in all of its forms.  "Don't let that expert or that bureaucrat tell me what to do....waaaaahhhh!!!!"  They're also the people claiming that they'd know better than average how to invest people's retirement accounts, and 20 years from now we'd have a class of people that everyone would have to support after the Hannah Montana Crash of 2014.

Here in Massachusetts, you can either pay a 5.4% state tax or you can choose to be taxed at a higher rate of 5.9%.  It's a box you can check on Massachusetts' tax forms.  I always tick off that box, because I like it when my streets are plowed and my water's clean.

I am anti-gun.  I don't believe guns should be in the hands of private citizens and that assault weapons have no place outside of a battlefield.  If you want all people to be able to defend themselves in the home, sign everyone up for martial arts classes and rape defense courses.  The average person with a gun is more of a danger to themselves than other people.

I'm not down with the idea of the average American (or the average person, mind you) being able to determine what is good and what is bad.  If they could do that already, there'd be more atheists.

 

 

 

"Like Fingerpainting 101, gimme no credit for having class; one thumb on the pulse of the nation, one thumb in your girlfriend's ass; written on, written off, some calling me a joke, I don't think that I'm a sellout but I do enjoy Coke."

-BHG


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Jormungander wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

What does the 2nd amendment state exactly? Could you possibly be taking it out of context?

According to the US Supreme Court in their Heller v. D.C opinion, the 2nd Ammendment states that private gun ownership is a fundamental right. The Supreme Court claims that the second ammendment's justification for enshrining this right is based on the defensive uses that guns hold. If you know of some context that negates the Surpreme Court's interpretation, please tell me.

Luckly for us the Court's recent opinion on the 2nd Ammendment reaffirms the fact that it is only about private gun ownership. So if you want to own 40 AK47s, go for it. Your state and the federal government lack the legitimate authority to stop you. They may only check to see that you aren't a felon and ask that you wait a maximum of 10 days before getting a gun after the purchase has been made. Felons and children are the only ones denied second ammendment rights. The logic is that felons and children can't be trusted to vote, so they can't be trusted with a gun. I don't agree with that, but felons are stripped of otherwise inalienable rights. So it makes sense in the sense that felons don't have their rights respected by the government like everyone else does.

I'de really like to hear what kind of context you are thinking the 2nd Ammendment has. I wonder if it contradicts the Supreme Court's interpretation of gun ownership by private individuals justified by the defensive uses of firearms. Keep in mind that according to Federal law, all adult males are members of the militia. So trying to tie gun rights to militia service won't work. I am a member of the militia even though I haven't joined the National Guard or some other government administrated militia; and completely unrelated to that, I get to own guns.

 

So..you don't know what it states exactly? Okay thanks.

 

/copypaste is so hard

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13829
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:None. I would

Vastet wrote:
None. I would also like to see party systems abolished.

Not going to happen. Being social animals, like all other species we flock to that which we are familiar with. Instead, what I would say is MORE political competition. I think the WE rely too much on fewer options when we should seek out more options.

A "party" is a group of people. If we have an atheist convention should we allow the majority of theist public arround us to dictate what our "party" does on it's own time? No more than they would want us dictating to them. BUT what IS stagnant in politics are the variety of options we have and we have far too few.

Groups are always going to exist. The key isn't to ban groups, that is utopian. The key is to find more ways to find overlap.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10723
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Not going to happen. Being

"Not going to happen. Being social animals, like all other species we flock to that which we are familiar with. Instead, what I would say is MORE political competition. I think the WE rely too much on fewer options when we should seek out more options."

I disagree. More parties won't accomplish anything. If people want to form groups that agree to vote together on certain issues that's fine. But those groups have to support themselves, no more wasting of taxpayers dollars. People should each have a say, rather than voting in a few people to make their decisions for them. The whole platform idea is wrong from the get-go. Noone should have to commit to stupid ideas in order to support good ones. Abolish platforms and parties for a better, more democratic, democracy.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Noone should

Vastet wrote:
Noone should have to commit to stupid ideas in order to support good ones. Abolish platforms and parties for a better, more democratic, democracy.

How for towards direct democracy are we getting here in your plan? I don't want society at large voting to determine if I get to keep my rights. I would hate to think that 51% of society wants me be stripped of religious freedoms or not be allowed to marry a member of another race. We had direct democracy in California's Prop 8 election. Most people voted to strip gays of marriage rights. Perhaps if we had enshrined rights that direct democracy could not violate, then we could vote directly on issues without the high likelihood of unpopular groups having basic rights stripped away by the majority.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
 I am, only me.   

 I am, only me.  

 


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
I'm something like a

I'm something like a democratic socialist, with a little of capitalism. I'll explain. Capitalism is a game. I'd like to have capitalism, but mostly as a public form of sport and entertainment. The richest businessmen should be publically celebrated for being so succesful and productive, and most of their profit must go to the state, for social politics. Which will also help their fellow less succesful businessmen back on their feet. They should be rewarded with public fame, trust and funds for other, greater projects. There should be no great private concentration of wealth, as my grandma would say, every human being has only one mouth and one shithole. The spice...eh, I mean, the money must flow!

My favorite party is the Humanistic party. Their main goals are:
 - rejection of all forms of violence, physical, economic, racial, sexual, religional, and so on. Global disarmament, WMD trade ban.
 - direct democracy, responsibility of politicians for their work, if they fail, they should get fired.
 - public healthcare, education and apartments (sold only to collectives of owners),
 - end of financial speculations, monopols and concentrations of capital.
 - support of small and middle business, support of all companies with participation of employees on decision making.
 - provision of decent life for refugees, including voting and citizen rights for immigrants. Precautions against discrimination.
 - decreasing nuclear and fossil fuel energetics, increasing renewable energy sources.
 - classifying water as a public property, which must not be commercialized.
Really, I can't find a single point to disagree.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Big E wrote:what party do you belong to or affiliate with

   Well since I consider myself a Anarchist,it's its hard to say that I affiliate with any particular party,but I've voted for third party candidates like Ralph Nader and I also think that the Green Party has a good platform.I also can be consider a Libertarian-Socialist that believe in a participatory democracy.  

Signature ? How ?


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Ken G.

Ken G. wrote:

Libertarian-Socialist

 

I can just see the hairs on the back of BigE's neck stand up, now

 

What Would Kharn Do?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13829
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"Capitalism" is not a form

"Capitalism" is not a form of government.  Every government around the world "capitalizes" off of something to gain resources and maintain power.

What the west has are OPEN MARKETS,

vs say North Korea which has unsuccessful closed Market, strictly strangled by the government.

And Saudi Arabia which has a successful closed market strictly controlled by the government who "Capitalizes" off the sale of oil.

Quote:
direct democracy

Not me, no way. I am in a minority and if the majority always ruled, many here including former President Bush Sr said, "I do not think atheists should be considered citizens".  Our Constitutional system is set up to prevent absolute power, be it by the President, congress, Supreme Court AND THE VOTERS. The voters are not dictators nor should they be otherwise if they were, dissent would be easly squashed by the government.

What we have in America is an anti-trust law that prevents absolute power. The autonomy of the branches of government and the autonomy of the voter, both majority and minority, are set up with that buffer to prevent mob rule.

Whatever problems our society has in it's politics, and I agree it can improve, should not involve stripping away the protections written in the Constitution to prevent absolute rule. Our system is based on advise and consent and the voting.

If you want to complain about the waste in spending, or the rich ignoring the poor, the Constitution allows you the oportunity to make that change. But anything you want is not given to you, it is up to you to raise your voice.

Considering you live in a theistic world as an atheist I'd be careful about wanting to hand over power to a majority that doesn't like you.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
You an Ozzy too

You an Ozzy too Atheistextremist?

I am a swinging voter. I don't believe in sticking to one party based on ideals. It is more important to look at  the policies and strengths of the party at the time of the election. Each party tends to have strengths and weaknesses and sometimes it is good to change parties now and then to get a more even balance overall.

I also use a process where I vote against the biggest idiot.

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10723
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Vastet

Jormungander wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Noone should have to commit to stupid ideas in order to support good ones. Abolish platforms and parties for a better, more democratic, democracy.

How for towards direct democracy are we getting here in your plan? ~ groups having basic rights stripped away by the majority.

Yeah, a strong constitution with rights enshrined federally would be necessary. And in order to thwart it, I'd say a 90% vote would be necessary. 90% of the population, not the voters. If that many people are against you, you're fucked anyway.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
I am a

I am a rational-anarcho-techno-socialist who believes participation in society (and deriving the benefits thereof) requires contributing to the government of society. (It is in this precept that I differ most from Libertarians.) The free market should be sharply regulated, as money equals power, and those with power will inevitably abuse power to maintain their power. (This became obvious to me watching Microsoft in ascendency, and was further demonstrated in the far more inept maneuverings of Enron and Worldcom.) I also believe it is the duty of all citizens to challenge the government at every turn, and to demand as much liberty as possible. I believe it should be the right of the government to pass laws; however, it should be the right of the public to overturn laws. Fiscally, the government should operate as they expect me to do: within the means. Every budget should be a balanced budget. If they need more money, they should plan ahead for next year and attempt to raise more money (via taxes, or perhaps an NPR funding drive).

Unfortunately, there is no party that professes any of my ideals. The Republican Party is way too whackaloon, and bows to the idol of the Unfettered Free Market (which is essentially carte blanche for the rich to fuck over the poor); they also have a terrible understanding of economics. The Democratic Party is schizophrenic, and seems to be an umbrella for everyone who recognizes the Republican Party for the group of self-serving crackpots that it is. (Not to say that members of the Democratic Party aren't self-serving.) They don't even have the balls to get socialized medicine right, even with excellent examples of working systems both at home (Indian Health Service, which the Palins cynically use) and abroad. The Green Party also suffers from a bit of inclusionist craziness, though I have often voted for their candidates.

I am registered as a Democratic Party member. This is entirely for local politics, as locally, there is no viable third party, and I don't have the money to start one.

I would definitely join a fiscally-responsible, socially-progressive, science-minded party, if there were one.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13829
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Jormungander

Vastet wrote:
Jormungander wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Noone should have to commit to stupid ideas in order to support good ones. Abolish platforms and parties for a better, more democratic, democracy.

How for towards direct democracy are we getting here in your plan? ~ groups having basic rights stripped away by the majority.

Yeah, a strong constitution with rights enshrined federally would be necessary. And in order to thwart it, I'd say a 90% vote would be necessary. 90% of the population, not the voters. If that many people are against you, you're fucked anyway.

So fuck it, bend over, never dissent because you are fucked?

I am glad women, blacks and gays never gave up. They have made it much easier for atheists.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13829
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
If you went back in time and

If you went back in time and told a slave that black man would be president of the United States they would call you nuts.

I don't want a direct democracy for this very reason. Because even in the United States a majority wanted slavery. BUT the founders were WISE enough to crack the door open so that positive change could eventually take hold. Many of them were abolitionists but realized they wouldn't have had the support to start this country if they had run on that platform. But they were wise enough to set the stage for improvement.

The bottom line is that absolute rule corrupts absolutely. You don't want to set up a system where it is possible for one party, or a majority always gets what it wants. There has to be an insurance that those whom are not in the majority have a way to compete and raise their voices without fear of being silenced.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10723
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Vastet

Brian37 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Jormungander wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Noone should have to commit to stupid ideas in order to support good ones. Abolish platforms and parties for a better, more democratic, democracy.

How for towards direct democracy are we getting here in your plan? ~ groups having basic rights stripped away by the majority.

Yeah, a strong constitution with rights enshrined federally would be necessary. And in order to thwart it, I'd say a 90% vote would be necessary. 90% of the population, not the voters. If that many people are against you, you're fucked anyway.

So fuck it, bend over, never dissent because you are fucked?

I am glad women, blacks and gays never gave up. They have made it much easier for atheists.

For one thing, those inequalities have largely been eliminated due to the very same group of voters, so the reference is irrelevant. For another, I'd ask you to demonstrate that 90% of the population was for slavery

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10723
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Women and blacks gained

Women and blacks gained freedom because the white men voters gave them that freedom. Considering that it was a monarchy who set the ground rules, not a democracy, your point is flawed.

I also didn't even imply that dissent should be frowned upon. Nothing would stop you from campaigning for or against a law. You just wouldn't get tax dollars to form a group over it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3472
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
i'm an old-fashioned zachary

i'm an old-fashioned zachary taylor whig.  fuck all y'all!


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13829
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Women and

Vastet wrote:
Women and blacks gained freedom because the white men voters gave them that freedom. Considering that it was a monarchy who set the ground rules, not a democracy, your point is flawed. I also didn't even imply that dissent should be frowned upon. Nothing would stop you from campaigning for or against a law. You just wouldn't get tax dollars to form a group over it.

There has to be, in a civil society the ability to reverse bad decisions. Impulse knee jerk reactions is what fascism uses. The idea that because it works now, it will always work. It never takes into account that because you agree now with the majority you will always agree with the majority, or that you will always be part of the majority.

No, the founders were not a Monarchy. Washington was offered KINGSHIP and turned it down in favor of elected leaders. It is TRUE that they could only do so much at the time. But they WERE forward thinking in knowing that at some point others would want to compete.

You could make the argument at the time that it was a "white christian club" only AT THE TIME. But you cant deny that "no religious test" was ahead of it's time, even if those at the time didn't implement it. They had their hands tied, but they were also thinking past the bigotry of the time, even if they couldn't end it in their lifetimes.

They knew that they were AHEAD of those supporting them. But just like Obama couldn't come out and say he was an atheist (not that he is) he still in his speech recognized our existence. WITHOUT the First Amendment and WITHOUT "no religious test" Obama, much less Leiberman or JFK, would have happened.

The founders did the best they could at the time. But the last thing they wanted was the thing they escaped to rule over them. But to say they wanted the same thing as Iran's theocracy, or North Korea's one party rule, is absurd. By definition "Monarchy" means rule by one.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
Lifeboat Party.

Welcome!


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10723
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"There has to be, in a civil

"There has to be, in a civil society the ability to reverse bad decisions."

Nothing preventing that in a party-less state. It can even happen faster, since you don't need to wait to vote in a new party.

"No, the founders were not a Monarchy."

Point of fact, they were. England and its monarchy settled and built the foundations for North America, with major contributions from France and Spain, also monarchies.

Everything else dovetails from this.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
ronin-dog wrote:You an Ozzy

ronin-dog wrote:

I am a swinging voter. I don't believe in sticking to one party based on ideals. It is more important to look at  the policies and strengths of the party at the time of the election. Each party tends to have strengths and weaknesses and sometimes it is good to change parties now and then to get a more even balance overall.

Mee too. There isn't a party that fully represents my views, and as for ideals, there really isn't any definitively bad or good ideals, we all have good intentions, so I go with the theory that the best approximation of good in politics is 'appropriate under the circumstances'. Sometimes a conservative approach will serve our common interests better than a progressive one and vice versa. My vote follows the issues.

At heart I hold an, ambitious, liberal-meritocratic/anarchic-socialist ideal, in practice I am far more moderate.

ronin-dog wrote:

I also use a process where I vote against the biggest idiot.

You're an Aussie Sticking out tongue no doubt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

 I think we need to have a series of rounds, where the person with the least support in votes loses.

 

That way it is clear and easy. It takes more time sure, but it also could be televised like american idol. Except it matters.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi mate

ronin-dog wrote:

You an Ozzy too Atheistextremist?

I am a swinging voter. I don't believe in sticking to one party based on ideals. It is more important to look at  the policies and strengths of the party at the time of the election. Each party tends to have strengths and weaknesses and sometimes it is good to change parties now and then to get a more even balance overall.

I also use a process where I vote against the biggest idiot.

 

Yep - I've been reading the posts here and formulating a proper comment but not got around to it. Partly the difference between politics in Australia and the U.S. makes it hard to find common ground.

I'm not sure what the Canadian political system is like. I think our major political parties in Oz are very similar to each other - a key recent difference being the profundity of John Howard's eyebrows.

One thing that's obvious reading what people are saying are the intense personal nuances of political thinking. I like Lumie's profoundly idealistic position but don't know how it's to be paid for.

Maybe we go back to village life and tilling our own fields - not such a bad thought except for the shitful coffee and same-old company.

I think voting against the biggest idiot isn't a bad idea though it's hard in an environment awash with idiots. Politics, let's be honest, is a microcosm that does not allow actual goodness to survive.

I imagine none of us feel truly represented by our governments. As a small business person I want tax reform but I want the environment taken seriously, too. I don't want crazy immigration but I

want both workable immigration and proper management of refugees. And I want a healthy measure of socialism without taking away vital entrepreneurial motivation that ultimately sloshes around the

taxable income needed to pay for all the rest of it.  At the same time I want to be left the fuck alone on a couple of thousand acres in a solar powered house with a corrugated iron roof with the words

"Go fuck yourself" painted on it - this partly directed at the almighty and partly at the police helicopters sniffing around all the dope I'll be growing.

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: I think we

ClockCat wrote:

 I think we need to have a series of rounds, where the person with the least support in votes loses.

 

That way it is clear and easy. It takes more time sure, but it also could be televised like american idol. Except it matters.

 

You know what would add some more flavor to that? We kill the losers on the spot...

 

... and we kill the winner when their term is up...

 

 

Gotta admit its one of the best ideas when it comes to politics ^_^

What Would Kharn Do?


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

The Doomed Soul wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 I think we need to have a series of rounds, where the person with the least support in votes loses.

 

That way it is clear and easy. It takes more time sure, but it also could be televised like american idol. Except it matters.

 

You know what would add some more flavor to that? We kill the losers on the spot...

 

... and we kill the winner when their term is up...

 

 

Gotta admit its one of the best ideas when it comes to politics ^_^

 

Instead of killing them, why not pair it with the idea from that other thread and pit them in a deathmatch for freedom against eachother?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.