Tell Me :
Talk
Just for your info: Marxism is a multiple 'notion'. I mean: it's an economical analysis of the development of capitalism in the first place. Let me tell you that the main capitalist Bourse experts on Wallstreet agree with Marx' economical analyses, though of course not with his political Communist Manifest, which is something totally different than his scientifical analysis as an economist of the phenomenon 'capitalism'.
Likewise. Which is why I prefer the system we have at present. Only very rarely do we have a hung parliament.
well, they are.
I know, Gazza. But I was commenting on proportional all-party vote systems, not the UK one. I understand that MP's are elected by individual constituencies.
Well, if you understand that much I am all the more surprised that you fall for and espouse sloganeering conflating Obama and Marxism. Obama is a rather cautious centrist Democrat, much to my dissapointment. I was hoping more for the radicalism of an FDR. You really should rise above the Marxism and Joe the Plumber soundbites if you want people to take you seriously. Just a thought. Unfortunately what people on the Right tend to do in recent years is lob grenades with simplistic slogans at people and then be surprised when they are expected to go beyond that. That's what happens when you allow bigots and windbags like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to define your movement. Conservatism used to have an intellectual core that I respected even when I disagreed with them. Now it's "Death Panels", "Obama is a Socialist", "Obama isn't a real citizen", etc. How can you expect people to take your views seriously when your movement is defined by things like that? I am not assuming those are your personal views, but I do think it's an accurate reflection of the contemporary condition of American Conservatism.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-05-07 20:58 by 71Tele.
But if the US President can't reckon on an undivided and united majority, he's a lame duck, like Clinton actually was and Obama in a lesser degree. Look at the result of the new health care legislation. How many pages does it contain and how many rules? How many compromises were needed and how many promises to representatives and especially senators? President, House of Representatives and the Senate, they keep each other too often armlocked, unless, what I said, they form a unity and have a majority in Congress, like under Bush jr.
As for GB: Labour being a socialist party? Come on! In fact Wyman was right when he said that Labour had done nothing for the lower classes. In fact the UK is still a class society, with sharp contrasts between the different classes. Despite so many years Labour government (best friends of Bush jr.). The difference between Labour and Tory is much, much smaller than most people think. Remember the declaration scandal last summer. All parties involved. Significant.
You have a point, but the health care debate is much more an issue of vested financial interests (read Corporations) than ideological ones, though that is certainly true as well.
I've just explained why he 'is'. He has no choice anyway.
Basically true. He has too many Wall Street people in his administration. What's funny is that the right wing still goes apeshit whenever a Democrat wins the presidency, as if the Republicans had some sort of God given right to govern forever. This is true even when the De. president's policies are relatively moderate (as Clinton's was an Obama's are).
Indeed. You can add that to the unavoidability of compromise. So in the end I think that in the US the need to compromise is much bigger than here in Holland where we have coalition governments. Seems paradoxal, but it's explainable.
Ah,politicians and their stats
Actually Keith gave quite a srong political comment about public libraries lately which was also recognized in British media. His best quote for years.
- Doxa
Keith can’t vote in London, either. You have to vote where you are registered on the electoral roll – and I’d of thought that’d be West Wittering, in his case.
...sounds like heaven
Thank you kleer. I always appreciate intelligent discussion. I enjoy politics, but it's hard to not get embroiled in a political argument when someone offers the bait. It appears our British friends have resolved their electoral dilemma.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Stones-Who do they vote for?
Posted by:
dewlover
()
Date: May 7, 2010 20:33
1) WRONG; The Economy problem in the U.S. was caused by Dems like Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd forcing the banks like Fannie, and Freddie to make loans to "minorities" who could'nt otherwise obtain a mortgage.
2) WRONG: I'm making points, not "conservative" or otherwise...btw, for the record, Joe the Plumber was elected into office by the voters of Ohio...
3) I try not to "Conflate" while at work...
...and why a post about "voting" is no place for politics makes no sense to me!!!
2) WRONG: I'm making points, not "conservative" or otherwise...btw, for the record, Joe the Plumber was elected into office by the voters of Ohio...
3) I try not to "Conflate" while at work...
...and why a post about "voting" is no place for politics makes no sense to me!!!
Re: Stones-Who do they vote for?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: May 7, 2010 20:33
Quote
71TeleQuote
dewlover
"people who equate Obama with Marx know nothing about either."
That's not what i said either...
However, if you want to tell me that there are no similarities between Socialism/Marxism, and Obama's comment to Joe the Plumber; "I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.", then i'd have to say you "know nothing" too...
What's happening in Greece sure as hell ain't a result of capitalism...
1. No, but what happened in the U.S. is the result of unregulated extreme right-wing capitalism gone wild (and I am a capitalist).
2. If you are still clinging to Joe The Plumber to make conservative political points. I pity you.
3. Conflating socialism (which Obama isn't one) with Marxism is like conflating Dick Cheney with @#$%&: Emotionally satisfying for the one doing it, but hyperbole at best, and inaccurate.
I think your arguments are simplistic and weak, but again, this is no place for a political argument. You chose to introduce incendiary political comments. I, unfortunately, chose to respond. best of luck to you. Enjoy Fox News.
Just for your info: Marxism is a multiple 'notion'. I mean: it's an economical analysis of the development of capitalism in the first place. Let me tell you that the main capitalist Bourse experts on Wallstreet agree with Marx' economical analyses, though of course not with his political Communist Manifest, which is something totally different than his scientifical analysis as an economist of the phenomenon 'capitalism'.
Re: Stones-Who do they vote for?
Posted by:
dewlover
()
Date: May 7, 2010 20:33
P.S. We don't have "Fox News" in my neck of the woods...
Re: Stones-Who do they vote for?
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: May 7, 2010 20:37
Quote
71Tele
The stability is why I like our system of presidential divided government. The president does not need a legislative majority to stay in power, which gives him or her more authority and stability, but it can be very bad when you have a very unpopular administration (like the last years of Bush) which has been in power a long time. I do not trust party wheeling and dealing, which is whi I generally don't like pure proportional systems.
Likewise. Which is why I prefer the system we have at present. Only very rarely do we have a hung parliament.
Quote
71Tele
I also think a member of parliament should be responsible to a constituency of voters, not just a party.
well, they are.
Re: Stones-Who do they vote for?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: May 7, 2010 20:44
long live the queen !
Re: Stones-Who do they vote for?
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: May 7, 2010 20:48
Quote
GazzaQuote
71Tele
The stability is why I like our system of presidential divided government. The president does not need a legislative majority to stay in power, which gives him or her more authority and stability, but it can be very bad when you have a very unpopular administration (like the last years of Bush) which has been in power a long time. I do not trust party wheeling and dealing, which is whi I generally don't like pure proportional systems.
Likewise. Which is why I prefer the system we have at present. Only very rarely do we have a hung parliament.Quote
71Tele
I also think a member of parliament should be responsible to a constituency of voters, not just a party.
well, they are.
I know, Gazza. But I was commenting on proportional all-party vote systems, not the UK one. I understand that MP's are elected by individual constituencies.
Re: Stones-Who do they vote for?
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: May 7, 2010 20:51
Quote
kleermakerQuote
71TeleQuote
dewlover
"people who equate Obama with Marx know nothing about either."
That's not what i said either...
However, if you want to tell me that there are no similarities between Socialism/Marxism, and Obama's comment to Joe the Plumber; "I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.", then i'd have to say you "know nothing" too...
What's happening in Greece sure as hell ain't a result of capitalism...
1. No, but what happened in the U.S. is the result of unregulated extreme right-wing capitalism gone wild (and I am a capitalist).
2. If you are still clinging to Joe The Plumber to make conservative political points. I pity you.
3. Conflating socialism (which Obama isn't one) with Marxism is like conflating Dick Cheney with @#$%&: Emotionally satisfying for the one doing it, but hyperbole at best, and inaccurate.
I think your arguments are simplistic and weak, but again, this is no place for a political argument. You chose to introduce incendiary political comments. I, unfortunately, chose to respond. best of luck to you. Enjoy Fox News.
Just for your info: Marxism is a multiple 'notion'. I mean: it's an economical analysis of the development of capitalism in the first place. Let me tell you that the main capitalist Bourse experts on Wallstreet agree with Marx' economical analyses, though of course not with his political Communist Manifest, which is something totally different than his scientifical analysis as an economist of the phenomenon 'capitalism'.
Well, if you understand that much I am all the more surprised that you fall for and espouse sloganeering conflating Obama and Marxism. Obama is a rather cautious centrist Democrat, much to my dissapointment. I was hoping more for the radicalism of an FDR. You really should rise above the Marxism and Joe the Plumber soundbites if you want people to take you seriously. Just a thought. Unfortunately what people on the Right tend to do in recent years is lob grenades with simplistic slogans at people and then be surprised when they are expected to go beyond that. That's what happens when you allow bigots and windbags like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to define your movement. Conservatism used to have an intellectual core that I respected even when I disagreed with them. Now it's "Death Panels", "Obama is a Socialist", "Obama isn't a real citizen", etc. How can you expect people to take your views seriously when your movement is defined by things like that? I am not assuming those are your personal views, but I do think it's an accurate reflection of the contemporary condition of American Conservatism.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-05-07 20:58 by 71Tele.
Re: Stones-Who do they vote for?
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: May 7, 2010 20:53
I think Keith could care less about politics. And so do I - basically all of them (politicians) are more stupid than the other. And we pay for that circus - hahahaQuote
Big AlQuote
Rik
keith is american nowadays
Err, no he isn't. He's a U.S. resident - not a citizen. He can't even vote in the States.
Re: Stones-Who do they vote for?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: May 7, 2010 20:55
Quote
GazzaQuote
71Tele
The stability is why I like our system of presidential divided government. The president does not need a legislative majority to stay in power, which gives him or her more authority and stability, but it can be very bad when you have a very unpopular administration (like the last years of Bush) which has been in power a long time. I do not trust party wheeling and dealing, which is whi I generally don't like pure proportional systems.
Likewise. Which is why I prefer the system we have at present. Only very rarely do we have a hung parliament.Quote
71Tele
I also think a member of parliament should be responsible to a constituency of voters, not just a party.
well, they are.
But if the US President can't reckon on an undivided and united majority, he's a lame duck, like Clinton actually was and Obama in a lesser degree. Look at the result of the new health care legislation. How many pages does it contain and how many rules? How many compromises were needed and how many promises to representatives and especially senators? President, House of Representatives and the Senate, they keep each other too often armlocked, unless, what I said, they form a unity and have a majority in Congress, like under Bush jr.
As for GB: Labour being a socialist party? Come on! In fact Wyman was right when he said that Labour had done nothing for the lower classes. In fact the UK is still a class society, with sharp contrasts between the different classes. Despite so many years Labour government (best friends of Bush jr.). The difference between Labour and Tory is much, much smaller than most people think. Remember the declaration scandal last summer. All parties involved. Significant.
Re: Stones-Who do they vote for?
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: May 7, 2010 20:59
Quote
kleermakerQuote
GazzaQuote
71Tele
The stability is why I like our system of presidential divided government. The president does not need a legislative majority to stay in power, which gives him or her more authority and stability, but it can be very bad when you have a very unpopular administration (like the last years of Bush) which has been in power a long time. I do not trust party wheeling and dealing, which is whi I generally don't like pure proportional systems.
Likewise. Which is why I prefer the system we have at present. Only very rarely do we have a hung parliament.Quote
71Tele
I also think a member of parliament should be responsible to a constituency of voters, not just a party.
well, they are.
But if the US President can't reckon on an undivided and united majority, he's a lame duck, like Clinton actually was and Obama in a lesser degree. Look at the result of the new health care legislation. How many pages does it contain and how many rules? How many compromises were needed and how many promises to representatives and especially senators? President, House of Representatives and the Senate, they keep each other too often armlocked, unless, what I said, they form a unity and have a majority in Congress, like under Bush jr.
As for GB: Labour being a socialist party? Come on! In fact Wyman was right when he said that Labour had done nothing for the lower classes. In fact the UK is still a class society, with sharp contrasts between the different classes. Despite so many years Labour government (best friends of Bush jr.). The difference between Labour and Tory is much, much smaller than most people think. Remember the declaration scandal last summer. All parties involved. Significant.
You have a point, but the health care debate is much more an issue of vested financial interests (read Corporations) than ideological ones, though that is certainly true as well.
Re: Stones-Who do they vote for?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: May 7, 2010 21:01
Quote
71Tele
Obama is a rather cautious centrist Democrat.
I've just explained why he 'is'. He has no choice anyway.
Re: Stones-Who do they vote for?
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: May 7, 2010 21:04
Quote
kleermakerQuote
71Tele
Obama is a rather cautious centrist Democrat.
I've just explained why he 'is'. He has no choice anyway.
Basically true. He has too many Wall Street people in his administration. What's funny is that the right wing still goes apeshit whenever a Democrat wins the presidency, as if the Republicans had some sort of God given right to govern forever. This is true even when the De. president's policies are relatively moderate (as Clinton's was an Obama's are).
Re: Stones-Who do they vote for?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: May 7, 2010 21:07
Quote
71Tele
... the health care debate is much more an issue of vested financial interests (read Corporations) ...
Indeed. You can add that to the unavoidability of compromise. So in the end I think that in the US the need to compromise is much bigger than here in Holland where we have coalition governments. Seems paradoxal, but it's explainable.
Re: Stones-Who do they vote for?
Posted by:
still ill
()
Date: May 7, 2010 21:28
Quote
NickBQuote
still ill
Have to say that after 13 years of opposition government,with an unpopular and unelected Prime minister,for Cameron not get an overall majority and to have to fish around for a deal with an underperforming Lib Dems is pretty damning for him,just my opinion obviously
Please remember Still Ill that its the biggest swing in favour of the Conservatives since the 30's and the biggest loss for labour since the 30's. More people voted for the conservatives in 2010 than voted for labour in 1997.
Ah the wonder of stats.
Ah,politicians and their stats
Re: Stones-Who do they vote for?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: May 7, 2010 21:40
Quote
mtaylorI think Keith could care less about politics. And so do I - basically all of them (politicians) are more stupid than the other. And we pay for that circus - hahahaQuote
Big AlQuote
Rik
keith is american nowadays
Err, no he isn't. He's a U.S. resident - not a citizen. He can't even vote in the States.
Actually Keith gave quite a srong political comment about public libraries lately which was also recognized in British media. His best quote for years.
- Doxa
Re: Stones-Who do they vote for?
Posted by:
Big Al
()
Date: May 8, 2010 16:59
Quote
colonial
BigAl..I couldnt imagine Keith flying from the States to London just to vote.Come think of that I couldnt imagine anyone doing that.
Keith can’t vote in London, either. You have to vote where you are registered on the electoral roll – and I’d of thought that’d be West Wittering, in his case.
Re: Stones-Who do they vote for?
Posted by:
Rip This
()
Date: May 8, 2010 17:11
Quote
dewlover
P.S. We don't have "Fox News" in my neck of the woods...
...sounds like heaven
Re: Stones-Who do they vote for?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: May 8, 2010 18:49
Tele, just want to say that I liked discussing our views and your posts here.
Re: Stones-Who do they vote for?
Posted by:
colonial
()
Date: May 12, 2010 03:30
To all ya British IORR members congratulations.I thought ya new Prime Ministers speech outside No 10 was good.Its always good to have a young and confident leader in power with some new ideas.David Cameron has certainly come along way in a short time..good on him I like him.
Re: Stones-Who do they vote for?
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: May 12, 2010 04:02
Quote
kleermaker
Tele, just want to say that I liked discussing our views and your posts here.
Thank you kleer. I always appreciate intelligent discussion. I enjoy politics, but it's hard to not get embroiled in a political argument when someone offers the bait. It appears our British friends have resolved their electoral dilemma.
Re: Stones-Who do they vote for?
Posted by:
mickscarey
()
Date: May 12, 2010 04:06
Quote
71TeleQuote
kleermakerQuote
71TeleQuote
dewlover
"people who equate Obama with Marx know nothing about either."
That's not what i said either...
However, if you want to tell me that there are no similarities between Socialism/Marxism, and Obama's comment to Joe the Plumber; "I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.", then i'd have to say you "know nothing" too...
ANYONE who calls Obama centrist is either totally out of their mind or in unreal denial. This guy is the most dangerous left wing nut America has ever seen, wants to eradicate capitalism; and is a Marxist/Socialist NUT. Sorry to BV but this is not somethign I stated; just responded. And admittedly probably does not belong on this site.
What's happening in Greece sure as hell ain't a result of capitalism...
1. No, but what happened in the U.S. is the result of unregulated extreme right-wing capitalism gone wild (and I am a capitalist).
2. If you are still clinging to Joe The Plumber to make conservative political points. I pity you.
3. Conflating socialism (which Obama isn't one) with Marxism is like conflating Dick Cheney with @#$%&: Emotionally satisfying for the one doing it, but hyperbole at best, and inaccurate.
I think your arguments are simplistic and weak, but again, this is no place for a political argument. You chose to introduce incendiary political comments. I, unfortunately, chose to respond. best of luck to you. Enjoy Fox News.
Just for your info: Marxism is a multiple 'notion'. I mean: it's an economical analysis of the development of capitalism in the first place. Let me tell you that the main capitalist Bourse experts on Wallstreet agree with Marx' economical analyses, though of course not with his political Communist Manifest, which is something totally different than his scientifical analysis as an economist of the phenomenon 'capitalism'.
Well, if you understand that much I am all the more surprised that you fall for and espouse sloganeering conflating Obama and Marxism. Obama is a rather cautious centrist Democrat, much to my dissapointment. I was hoping more for the radicalism of an FDR. You really should rise above the Marxism and Joe the Plumber soundbites if you want people to take you seriously. Just a thought. Unfortunately what people on the Right tend to do in recent years is lob grenades with simplistic slogans at people and then be surprised when they are expected to go beyond that. That's what happens when you allow bigots and windbags like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to define your movement. Conservatism used to have an intellectual core that I respected even when I disagreed with them. Now it's "Death Panels", "Obama is a Socialist", "Obama isn't a real citizen", etc. How can you expect people to take your views seriously when your movement is defined by things like that? I am not assuming those are your personal views, but I do think it's an accurate reflection of the contemporary condition of American Conservatism.
Re: Stones-Who do they vote for?
Posted by:
angee
()
Date: May 12, 2010 04:42
Somehow, if Keith could vote, I just can't see him going for John McCain and Sarah Palin.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
ColdFandango , daspyknows , gtx8834 , JimmyTheSaint , kovach , okenny , Shotaway2 , straycatuk , tumblingdice , willprefecture , zeppfloyd
Guests:
1532
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10