Eva Mendez is hot

The problem with the "socialist" attack is not that it's necessarily baseless. That depends on how broad your definition of "socialist" is, and there really is no objective truth on that. The problem is that any definition broad enough to include Obama, also has to include McCain.

Churchill2004: The problem is that any definition broad enough to include Obama, also has to include McCain.

Well put.

To the rest of the world, Obama is a right of centre, fairly moderate "conservative".

Glasgowsfinest: Churchill2004: The problem is that any definition broad enough to include Obama, also has to include McCain.

Well put.

To the rest of the world, Obama is a right of centre, fairly moderate "conservative".

Presidents can do only a few things to help a country, but they can do lots of things to hurt it. We've found this our over the last few years.

Socialism seemed like a horrible thing when I was 20 years old, single, convinced I'd be a millionare, and living cheaply. Being married with two kids and knowing that I'm one bad quarter away from losing my house, car, health insurance, and modest savings... I'm trying to remember what's so bad about it again?

/401k is now a 201k.

As opposed to lofty promises of jobs due to tax benifits, promises that will only be seen in the the rare few cases?

Lula!!

Also, ever modest, he also compared Obama to himself first before mentioning any of the other leaders he mentions. Lula's the metalworker elected in Brazil that he mentions off the top. It's true that his election was groundbreaking, though.

I think it's rather revelatory that he avoided mentioning Michelle Bachelet as a groundbreaking politician to be elected in South America... or Cristina de Kirchner...

Also, ever modest, he also compared Obama to himself first before mentioning any of the other leaders he mentions.

Too tired for coherence.

MisterTweak: Glasgowsfinest: Churchill2004: The problem is that any definition broad enough to include Obama, also has to include McCain.

Well put.

To the rest of the world, Obama is a right of centre, fairly moderate "conservative".

Presidents can do only a few things to help a country, but they can do lots of things to hurt it. We've found this our over the last few years.

Socialism seemed like a horrible thing when I was 20 years old, single, convinced I'd be a millionare, and living cheaply. Being married with two kids and knowing that I'm one bad quarter away from losing my house, car, health insurance, and modest savings... I'm trying to remember what's so bad about it again?

/401k is now a 201k.

You were a stupid 20 year old, weren't you?

Glasgowsfinest: Churchill2004: The problem is that any definition broad enough to include Obama, also has to include McCain.

Well put.

To the rest of the world, Obama is a right of centre, fairly moderate "conservative".

For us in Europe the absolute funniest thing about this whole campaign is a tie between Sarah Palin, just in general, and the term "Socialist" being applied to Obama.

America has no idea what socialism is.

bobbette: Also, ever modest, he also compared Obama to himself first before mentioning any of the other leaders he mentions. Lula's the metalworker elected in Brazil that he mentions off the top. It's true that his election was groundbreaking, though.

So Barack is his Joe the plumber?

also can brazilians qualify as dirty beaners?

Sabyen91: You were a stupid 20 year old, weren't you?

is there such a thing as a smart 20 year old?

log_jammin: Sabyen91: You were a stupid 20 year old, weren't you?

is there such a thing as a smart 20 year old?

Hmm, I was young, dumb and full of something or other.

log_jammin: Sabyen91: You were a stupid 20 year old, weren't you?

is there such a thing as a smart 20 year old?

As a 23 year old, I would have to say emphatically- NO.

Three Crooked Squirrels: Eva Mendez is hot

/what he/she/they said

Churchill2004: The problem with the "socialist" attack is not that it's necessarily baseless. That depends on how broad your definition of "socialist" is, and there really is no objective truth on that. The problem is that any definition broad enough to include Obama, also has to include McCain.

...and the entire country for the last century (or since its inception by the way some people moan about taxes)...and most western civilization at large.

ahh WTH, no one else seems to be awake....

jackc126: ahh WTH, no one else seems to be awake....

no one's ever awake this time on a Saturday/Sunday

log_jammin: jackc126: ahh WTH, no one else seems to be awake....

no one's ever awake this time on a Saturday/Sunday

eh, then i will awaken them!!!!

I'm not sure why there is anything newsworthy here, Lulo is a socialist, just like Chavez and Obama.

///EGADS... THE TROLLS!!!! queue the freeper inbred pics!!eleventy!111!

jackc126: log_jammin: jackc126: ahh WTH, no one else seems to be awake....

no one's ever awake this time on a Saturday/Sunday

eh, then i will awaken them!!!!

I'm not sure why there is anything newsworthy here, Lulo is a socialist, just like Chavez and Obama.

///EGADS... THE TROLLS!!!! queue the freeper inbred pics!!eleventy!111!

Eh, the only fascist is in Columbia. Really, saying every world leader is either socialist or solid Republican does not help.

heeey, here we go, just for Lulo:

Sabyen91: jackc126: log_jammin: jackc126: ahh WTH, no one else seems to be awake....

no one's ever awake this time on a Saturday/Sunday

eh, then i will awaken them!!!!

I'm not sure why there is anything newsworthy here, Lulo is a socialist, just like Chavez and Obama.

///EGADS... THE TROLLS!!!! queue the freeper inbred pics!!eleventy!111!

Eh, the only fascist is in Columbia. Really, saying every world leader is either socialist or solid Republican does not help.

Referring to Uribe as a fascist is somehow better?

I'd like to reiterate what's being said about Obama being "conservative". IMO the rest of the world (incl. me in the Non-US world) probably sees the US being run by one main right-wing party (Demopublican/Republicratic) with two factions, one being more right-wing than the other.

CurvedGirdle: I'd like to reiterate what's being said about Obama being "conservative". IMO the rest of the world (incl. me in the Non-US world) probably sees the US being run by one main right-wing party (Demopublican/Republicratic) with two factions, one being more right-wing than the other.

You sound like just another New Zealander social democrat to me.

/me tightens his troll hat

CurvedGirdle: I'd like to reiterate what's being said about Obama being "conservative". IMO the rest of the world (incl. me in the Non-US world) probably sees the US being run by one main right-wing party (Demopublican/Republicratic) with two factions, one being more right-wing than the other.





seems to be in the same range to me.


http://www.politicalcompass.org/

log_jammin: CurvedGirdle: I'd like to reiterate what's being said about Obama being "conservative". IMO the rest of the world (incl. me in the Non-US world) probably sees the US being run by one main right-wing party (Demopublican/Republicratic) with two factions, one being more right-wing than the other.

seems to be in the same range to me.


http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Ah, yes... leftist relativism at its finest with its ever-so-convincing colourful charts

jackc126: log_jammin: CurvedGirdle: I'd like to reiterate what's being said about Obama being "conservative". IMO the rest of the world (incl. me in the Non-US world) probably sees the US being run by one main right-wing party (Demopublican/Republicratic) with two factions, one being more right-wing than the other.

seems to be in the same range to me.


http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Ah, yes... leftist relativism at its finest with its ever-so-convincing colourful charts

LOL

Idiot. Read a book or something.

log_jammin: CurvedGirdle: I'd like to reiterate what's being said about Obama being "conservative". IMO the rest of the world (incl. me in the Non-US world) probably sees the US being run by one main right-wing party (Demopublican/Republicratic) with two factions, one being more right-wing than the other.

seems to be in the same range to me.


http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Well I see the point you make, that the world is mostly run that way, and I don't dispute that.

However, my issue is that the word "left" is thrown about as though it means "not-right", which it is not. One can be not left without being right, such as Sweden as you pointed out (can I say Sweden falls in a reasonable range to the called "center"?... feel free to disagree). Anyway, the bottom line is, "left" does not exist in the Democratic Party afaik. "Left" is more like the old East German party or the various Scandinavian minority parties, etc.

PascalsGhost: jackc126: log_jammin: CurvedGirdle: I'd like to reiterate what's being said about Obama being "conservative". IMO the rest of the world (incl. me in the Non-US world) probably sees the US being run by one main right-wing party (Demopublican/Republicratic) with two factions, one being more right-wing than the other.

seems to be in the same range to me.


http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Ah, yes... leftist relativism at its finest with its ever-so-convincing colourful charts

LOL

Idiot. Read a book or something.


No u?

XD

Plus, I am still staring at the pic of Adriana Lima here.

Go away, please? ;)

oh, and you know I wub you guys

CurvedGirdle: However, my issue is that the word "left" is thrown about as though it means "not-right", which it is not. One can be not left without being right, such as Sweden as you pointed out (can I say Sweden falls in a reasonable range to the called "center"?... feel free to disagree). Anyway, the bottom line is, "left" does not exist in the Democratic Party afaik. "Left" is more like the old East German party or the various Scandinavian minority parties, etc.


I don't really care for terms like "left"and "right". There's just way too many issues that are neither "left" or "right".

log_jammin: CurvedGirdle: However, my issue is that the word "left" is thrown about as though it means "not-right", which it is not. One can be not left without being right, such as Sweden as you pointed out (can I say Sweden falls in a reasonable range to the called "center"?... feel free to disagree). Anyway, the bottom line is, "left" does not exist in the Democratic Party afaik. "Left" is more like the old East German party or the various Scandinavian minority parties, etc.


I don't really care for terms like "left"and "right". There's just way too many issues that are neither "left" or "right".

Neither do I, and I like Political Compass myself (I am "Right"/"Authoritarian" too). But when those words are used, they almost always are used from the "in-team"/"out-team" views of the speaker...

CurvedGirdle: log_jammin: CurvedGirdle: However, my issue is that the word "left" is thrown about as though it means "not-right", which it is not. One can be not left without being right, such as Sweden as you pointed out (can I say Sweden falls in a reasonable range to the called "center"?... feel free to disagree). Anyway, the bottom line is, "left" does not exist in the Democratic Party afaik. "Left" is more like the old East German party or the various Scandinavian minority parties, etc.


I don't really care for terms like "left"and "right". There's just way too many issues that are neither "left" or "right".

Neither do I, and I like Political Compass myself (I am "Right"/"Authoritarian" too). But when those words are used, they almost always are used from the "in-team"/"out-team" views of the speaker...

You two are freaking me out with this team-speak...

Get a room?

ya know...

...we STILL have plenty of vajayjay sand to go around

////hearts, rainbows and non-team-kisses

Glasgowsfinest: To the rest of the world, Obama is a right of centre, fairly moderate "conservative".

I don't think so. Any president who plans on using the government to try and fix every social problem in the country, and who promises to continue heavy deficit spending to attempt to do it, isn't exactly "conservative" anywhere in the world.

log_jammin: seems to be in the same range to me.


http://www.politicalcompass.org/

I don't know how many times I've pointed out how distorted that graph is. On the libertarian/authoritarian scale, social policy is given much heavier weighting then economic policy, thus Nader being the most "libertarian" even though that's completely at odds with any common understanding of what that word means. That whole website is a rip-off of the Nolan Chart, which was emerged in the late 60s/early 70s in libertarian circles and takes its name from David Nolan, one of the founders of the Libertarian Party.




Note that it doesn't depend on arbitrary and, as demonstrated by your chart, highly subujective list-based definitions of the four extremities. Instead, it works on two simple axes measuring something that is relatively much more objective- the degree of government/private control over personal/social and economic matters. That's why the axes are perpendicular rather than parallel to the grid (though this pic doesn't show the grid).

helix400: I don't think so. Any president who plans on using the government to try and fix every social problem in the country, and who promises to continue heavy deficit spending to attempt to do it, isn't exactly "conservative" anywhere in the world.

Having said that, the folks and politicalcompass.com place their "middle of the road" so ridiculously far to the left, that they consider darn near everybody to be right-leaning.

helix400: to try and fix every social problem in the country,

what problems should the government not try to "fix"?

Churchill2004: it works on two simple axes measuring something that is relatively much more objective- the degree of government/private control over personal/social and economic matters. That's why the axes are perpendicular rather than parallel to the grid (though this pic doesn't show the grid).

ok

Another thing about those graphs- they deliberately misplace the center of the graph far outside the cluster of candidates shown, with no logical reason. It's rather absurd to have a graph showing everyone right-of-center. It's even more absurd to have a graph showing every country in Europe as right of center.

log_jammin: helix400: to try and fix every social problem in the country,

what problems should the government not try to "fix"?


mine?

yours?

Churchill2004: Another thing about those graphs- they deliberately misplace the center of the graph far outside the cluster of candidates shown, with no logical reason.

you base that on what?

log_jammin: Churchill2004: Another thing about those graphs- they deliberately misplace the center of the graph far outside the cluster of candidates shown, with no logical reason.

you base that on what?

The reality that your graph is marxist apologist poo?

First: It's Lula, not Lulo.

Second: I'm not reading it because it's an article submitted by a farking retard who doesn't understand Portuguese or South American politics at all. Left and Right don't mean the same in every hemisphere.

DIAF, Subby!

No, really. Kill yourself, Subby.

jackc126: The reality that your graph is marxist apologist poo?

It's not *my* graph.

here's MY graph

log_jammin: what problems should the government not try to "fix"?

Subsidizing dead industries (such as farming, manufacturing, etc.). Loosening standards and giving out money to try and get everyone to purchase a home (which creates far more problems than it solves). Hoping that giving extra money to poor folks will change behavior (which only reinforces it). Increasing government promised pensions (it's too expensive to try and fully fund retirement). Attempting to prevent offshoring through protectionism (or as Obama calls it, "fair trade"). Trying to improve working conditions by empowering unions even more. Believing that health care is a right promised by the government. Increasing medicare funding without trying to reign it in. Believing the minimum wage should become a living wage.

Those were just a few I could think of off hand.

log_jammin: jackc126: The reality that your graph is marxist apologist poo?

It's not *my* graph.

here's MY graph

Dammit, why could this have not been my submission?!?

Oh and helix400, one of the quirky things here is few read past the first line of a post if it does not start with a sentence praising Obama.

helix400: Subsidizing dead industries (such as farming, manufacturing, etc.). Loosening standards and giving out money to try and get everyone to purchase a home (which creates far more problems than it solves). Hoping that giving extra money to poor folks will change behavior (which only reinforces it). Increasing government promised pensions (it's too expensive to try and fully fund retirement). Attempting to prevent offshoring through protectionism (or as Obama calls it, "fair trade"). Trying to improve working conditions by empowering unions even more. Believing that health care is a right promised by the government. Increasing medicare funding without trying to reign it in. Believing the minimum wage should become a living wage.

so besides the military and the mail what exactly do you think the government is for?

Let me rephrase my question. WHY shouldn't the government try to fix problems?

log_jammin:

so besides the military and the mail what exactly do you think the government is for?

Let me rephrase my question. WHY shouldn't the government try to fix problems?

Would you stop with the softballs? Your non-response to the obvious was already noted. Pick a specific issue or something?

jackc126: Would you stop with the softballs? Your non-response to the obvious was already noted. Pick a specific issue or something?

non response to what?

log_jammin: WHY shouldn't the government try to fix problems?

1) Because it isn't capable of fixing these kinds of problems.
2) Among those who believe the government can, I've never met one that will state "we'll only try to fix these few things, and no others, because it gets too expensive". In short, if something is wrong, then more government programs is always the solution.

so besides the military and the mail what exactly do you think the government is for?

Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely not a libertarian. I'm don't want to strip down the government to a fraction of it's size. I'm pretty pragmatic and want funding being spent on issues where the payback is obvious and immediate. I also support basic social safety nets to help people in desperate times of need. There's just a massive difference in mindset between politicians who want to let people choose to persue a good job, health, a home, happiness, etc., and politicians who want to guarantee a good job, health, a home, happiness. I'm definitely in the former camp. I find it to be much cheaper, practical, realistic, and effective.

jackc126: Would you stop with the softballs?

Nah, he asked good questions.

/Can't stick around...it's late. Need sleep.

helix400: 1) Because it isn't capable of fixing these kinds of problems.

using your first example of the "dead" farming industry I'd say they've done a pretty damn good job of "fixing" it. The dust bowl days are long gone and we're a lead exporter of food.

2) Among those who believe the government can, I've never met one that will state "we'll only try to fix these few things, and no others, because it gets too expensive". In short, if something is wrong, then more government programs is always the solution.

There are MANY things the government shouldn't "fix" regardless of what the cost is. My choice to smoke or not. What i do in my bedroom. permits to put replace a hot water heater in my house.

but things like improved working conditions,a living wage, and prventing an industry from going under and putting millions out of work isn't on that list.

There's just a massive difference in mindset between politicians who want to let people choose to persue a good job, health, a home, happiness, etc., and politicians who want to guarantee a good job, health, a home, happiness.

I have yet to hear anyone say they will or would guarantee me anything like that.