Sadly, people at my Christian school are like this.

And I'm moderate btw, with liberal leanings.

AAAAHHHH FLAT TAX

/me disintegrates

This is so weird... you guys in America have only like... 2 options!! One or the other! I mean you may be moderate, but you can't vote for it!

It almost doesn't seem very democratic...

We in the Netherlands have a system with over 20 parties, of which a good number are 'big' parties. They represent every possible angle of the political spectrum... each party is unique. If one party wants to rule our country it will have to make a coalition with 1 or even 2 other parties to get a big enough majority.

It wasn't always like that. There was a third party called "Whig" that actually got people in office. It was the one time where a third party was viable. Eventually, they died away (lit. & fig.) so it's now just two party system. Sometimes, they blend together.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Anarcho-socialistic...that has to be, by far, the most idiotic oxymoron I've ever seen. Anarchy is the lack of government right? And socialism is an economic type that's controlled by the government right?

WTF?

(your views may be valid, just find a better word to explain it)[/QUOTE]

Anarcho-socialism (and anarcho-communism) are often misunderstood.

They did come out as a result of the Cold War. Anyone that opposed capitalism was a 'bad guy', and as communists and anarchists both did, they were banded together as 'bad guys'. Because of this, some ended up joining forces. A confused union at first, but over time it has developed into a coherent ideology.
Anarcho-communists oppose private ownership, while most other anarchists don't.

Note, 'socialism' and 'communism' are completely different things, but with respect to 'anarcho-socialism' and 'anarcho-communism' there isn't really a difference. The former is just used by people too afraid to label themselves as 'communist'.

The problem with 'environmentalism' in the US is that it isn't environmentalism; it's socialism in disguise. This is bad for both socialists and environmentalists, because it makes the socialists feel that they have to mask socialism under a veil of unnecessary crap, and environmentalism is getting misrepresented by people that don't understand environmental science.
Logging is one example. Environmentalists chain themselves to trees to stop them from being cut down, under the assumption that "cutting down trees is bad!". Well, it would be bad for the logging companies too, and that's why there are whole forests grown soley for the purpose of logging, so that the loggers have a sustainable source of trees.
Unfortunately, those hippies chained to trees also represent genuine scientific issues like global warming and pollution.

I used to be really bad. In fact, I was dubbed further Right than G. Gordon Liddy. Nowadays some of my social standings have been turning grey. I don't have the time, energy, or desire to "fight" some of the issues. Mainly it's been the issues of the "Religious Right" I've been shying away. But Illegal Immigration, I will fight to the bitter end to see our borders more secure and the THOUSANDS pouring across the border really really hampered.

I'm still a pretty adament fiscal conservative. I would like nothing better than the IRS demolished and reconstructed as a park. None of this income redistribution crap that is the income tax. Unfortunately it's going to take a Constitutional amendment to enact that desire. I would love to see the Marriage Penalty and Death Tax abolished. "We're sorry your <family member> died. Oh, fork over X% of assets" I will flat out and come clean that I say I will support a tax cut for rich and businesses.

Two future posts...wow.

I love you. Please never ever leave me.

Holy ... I'm in two signatures!

I'm moderate to liberal. I believe people can solve problems by thinking them through and considering all possible viewpoints, with violent opposition towards tradition, authority, dogma and other forms of cognitive laziness. My haircut always starts off conservative, but as the day progresses it takes a twist towards liberalism and downright anarchism, so I'm kind of in the whole spectrum of political parties.

We don't need to know what you're for and against. I'd say this thread will be lucky to survive another few posts before falling into a flame war about the rights of mothers and gays and whatnot. :\

(NOTE: I AM NOT EXPRESSING MY OPINION EITHER WAY)

I haven't got a clue what I am. But I say "vote Lib Dem" and that's all that matters.

It was a joke - I am the exact opposite in that I've given up on planet Earth and am actively trying to destroy it, not save it. I want to be the last generation.

Quoted for truth.

I'm in favour of the monster raving looney party.



... yes they are real.

Conservative, I am. I always did that that Massassi was more liberal minded - I guess cause the liberal post more :p

Flat Tax forever!

Plus I'm an Accounting major and thus have taken my fair share of economic classes and some of the options liberals favor for economic reform are stupid. Raising the minimum wage? *sighs* If it was only so simple...

Libertarian. I have no patience for your flat tax. Give me a national sales tax, and give it to me now!

I am a liberal.

I support:

Freedom

I don't support:

Pagewizard_YKS's beliefs.

And you voted for Bush?

/me dies

I'm pretty moderate, I think. I'm "conservative" on a lot of moral issues, "liberal" on most social issues, when it comes to taxes/spending I'm not even sure I have an opinion since I don't really care about money, I just think it's garbage to screw the poor and spend money on nonsensical statues and placards. I'm too conservative for everyone at college, I'm too liberal for everyone in Staten Island. I find it hard to support either side in elections or debates since often both sides are painfully full of it about something, and I think they know it.

Whenever I try to think of what should be done, flaws show up quickly. I'm begining to think that wanting everyone to be happy means wanting everyone to be perfect.

[QUOTE=Michael MacFarlane]And you voted for Bush?

/me dies[/QUOTE]

kwapinngg

I SUPPORT FEUDALISM

and stuff

i dont know my political group but i believe kids should be executed for shouting.

SO DO I, LET'S MURDER THEM

You're full of crap if you say you believe in Feudalism. A true feudal lord would give a vassal land to kill all the screaming kids.

Whatever, I believe in my own special feudalism.

I believe in a totalitarian, yet benevolent, dictatorship. Led by me.

For all of you saying you want "small government!" and "low taxes!", we've already tried laissez-faire free market capitalism. The industrial revolution was pretty much entirely free from government intervention, and it created absurd exploitation.
Long hours in terrible conditions for low wages, perfect for the factory owners, thoroughly maximizing their profits. A labourer complains? They're fired, and one of the people lined up outside the factory takes their place. As long as unemployment was kept at a suitably high rate, factory owners could do pretty much whatever they wanted.
It was only by forming trade unions that labourers could demand better wages and better conditions, and Labour movements were created as a direct result of the ridiculous exploitation enforced by factory owners. The factory owners, however, had already grown very rich and very powerful, so the only institution capable of enforcing regulation was government (although some European countries, Sweden and Holland in particular, managed to form very very big trade unions and kept the factory owners in check while government still stayed detached).
Banning child exploitation, setting up minimum wages, enforcing maximum hours and safe working conditions, this was only made possible by governments pushed into action by Labour movements and trade unions.

Left to its own devices, laissez-faire 'free market' capitalism is only hurling towards destruction, with evermore increasing profits and evermore exploited labourers. Even the government regulations came much too late in trying to deal with the economy during and after World War 1, and it was this laissez-faire capitalism that played a significant role in the Great Depression.
Laissez-faire capitalism simply isn't a sustainable system and will only create huge market failures, which it cannot deal with without government intervention and regulation.


And for those of you saying "bah humbug income tax!!", poverty creates poverty, and those born into poverty have an uphill struggle merely maintaining that level of poverty. The only way to break that cycle is to provide services that everyone can use, regardless of their income, so that they can start on a level playing field regardless of the family they're born into. State education is certainly the most important of these.
In order to pay for services that everyone can use, then everyone must pay for them (regardless of whether they choose to use them or not). Considering the whole point of these services is to offer low-income families a level playing field, it would be completely pointless to charge them huge amounts for it. The only sensible way is to charge according to income.
I really don't care about the 'moral issue' of taking more money from people that earn more, it is the only system that is fair and works. If a government is committed to improving these services, then the only option is to raise taxes.

Saying you want low taxes is the same as saying you want a government that does not function.

If you want the national debt to go higher and higher then so be it, but it's not helping. Because when you go so far in debt, before long you can't borrow any more. It costs money to run a country. You live in that country, and the more taxes you pay, the better off you're going to be because the government uses that money to improve things. No matter what it is, it's generally aimed at improving the country.

So how much higher do taxes have to be before our government starts working?

The point is we can't just cut taxes and cancel programs and expect the country to continue to work.

The problem is that we try to save everyone under the sun. Some people just cannot be saved. The cliché solution to the problem of just throw money at it does not work. We throw billions towards education yet test scores are still abysmal. And with the billions thrown at education, it would seem like every school in the nation should be top-notch standard. But there are still those schools who have seen better days. The problem is the allocation of the funds. The nice high school in Torrey Pines (suburb of San Diego) getting the extra renovation to the football field while the school on Olive and Melrose (I drive by there everyday) looks like it needs some touching up. If TP wants their fields renovated pay for it themselves! They're in a rich part of San Diego.

From what I've seen, these types of social issues don't get solved really. They stay issues for politicians to get on soap boxes and proclaim "I AM GOING TO HELP GET MORE $$ FOR THE CHILDREN IN MY DISTRICT!" Everybody claps and votes for the guy and jack **** gets done or it takes a LONG time. Rinse and repeat for the next politican and/or issue.

I don't like taxes raised because I know this scenario happens even on local levels. If governments are going to take taxes from us and proport to fund social programs that benefit the citizens of <city/state/nation>, then fund them. If a program is actually working then keep it. I have no problem. My beef is that politicians want to tax the rich more and more and throw it to the "poor" and smile in front of cameras. I really do think that all members of Congress that have been there for more than a decade should be kicked out next election.

Let's face it: we could lower taxes, eliminate half the government, and it could be twice as efficient as it is now. There is a lot of room for streamlining it due to current corruption, bloat, waste, inefficient use of time and resources, and what have you. That's why I'm very wary of raising taxes. There comes a point where it's a better solution to improve the government rather than throwing more money at it.

I think I'm with JG on this one.

Wow, I don't think I've ever read a more BS post with no backup whatsoever.



Hong Kong ^____________^

Good to see a Conservative, PageWizard.

Edit: Wait where did his post go?

please note: i definitely am not taking names and definitely wont outright ban all liberals at the conclusion of this thread

really.

<Brad> yes
<Brad> yeeessss
<Brad> this political poll identification thread is playing right into my hands
<Brad> all of the liberals are identifying themselves
<Brad> fools....
<Brad> the coming banning retribution apocalypse will be swift and unmerciful


QUICK RUUUUUUUUUUUN

* gets shot

Nno--I mean, GOOD! Hah, we got Genki! Good for us, eh? Eh?

This is why I don't vote on polls.

Tools

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Wow, I don't think I've ever read a more BS post with no backup whatsoever.[/QUOTE]
No BS here. He's advocating what I'm advocating. Smaller, streamlined, more efficient government. Not some lumbering, bloated, slow government that we continually feed with promise and penny.