We need more moderate politicians

[Maynard Keenan]

That's why I support Wesley Clark for president in '08. He has all the right ideas and isn't rigid in any ideology. He's a strong moderate.

 

[arnegrim]

Be that as it may, I don't think anyone could call it an opposite, and it is certainly in my opinion not left wing on a global scale, although it may stand for the left in the US.

Again... it doesn't matter 'globally'... our government is not 'global' so its an invalid comparison.

I said right of centre, which is the same thing as being more conservative globally, so does that mean we agree?

Sure... although I obviously don't think its as far 'right' as you do.

How very obliging of you!

You're welcome.

Which is perhaps why the US ends up in so many pointless fights...

Really? What other nations base their political leaders on what the rest of the world thinks of them? Can you name one?

I cannot think of a democraticly elected government which sits further to the right than the Republican government in the US. You cannot provide such a country either so far. So yes, that does say a lot about the US.

I said government... you want to limit it to 'democratically elected'...

Yes and for many different reasons. The reason in this case being the peculiarities of US politics that we have been discussing - the tendency to the right. Bush is not a moderate.

I disagree.

I already said I agree with you on that one.

Then why are we continuing this?

 

[ScottishJohn]

Again... it doesn't matter 'globally'... our government is not 'global' so its an invalid comparison.

No, its just a comparison you do not care for. We are comparing your government to the governments around the rest of the world. The US does not exist in a vacuum, and certainly is very active globally.

Sure... although I obviously don't think its as far 'right' as you do.

I haven't said how far right I think it is, just that it is further right than any other elected government I am aware of.

Really? What other nations base their political leaders on what the rest of the world thinks of them? Can you name one?

You said: 'We are not a country that caters it politics and politicians around other countries...' Which is exactly why you end up in so many pointless fights. The US often gives the impression that it could not care less what takes place outside its borders. I am not saying this is the case, but that is often the impression given, and by electing a President who was (and to a certain extent still is) ignorant of world politics and geography you reinforce that message. I remember watching Bush act on that incident with the spy plane in China and thinking how incredibly inept the guy was. Most other countries elect someone who has the ability to be taken seriously outside of their own country.

I said government... you want to limit it to 'democratically elected'...

Yup because we are comparing countries, and 1 person deciding they will rule a country (like Pinochet or Musharraf or any other despot) is in no way representative of that country and the views of the poeple, whereas an elected leader is representative of the views of a sizeable proportion of the people. So one comparison is meaningful, whereas the other has no meaning.

I disagree.

In what way do you consider Bush a moderate?

Then why are we continuing this?

I dunno!

 

[arnegrim]

No, its just a comparison you do not care for. We are comparing your government to the governments around the rest of the world. The US does not exist in a vacuum, and certainly is very active globally.

No... I am comparing the currently elected representatives to the US political spectrum.

I haven't said how far right I think it is, just that it is further right than any other elected government I am aware of.

Again... we would disagree with how far 'right' it is.

You said: 'We are not a country that caters it politics and politicians around other countries...' Which is exactly why you end up in so many pointless fights. The US often gives the impression that it could not care less what takes place outside its borders. I am not saying this is the case, but that is often the impression given, and by electing a President who was (and to a certain extent still is) ignorant of world politics and geography you reinforce that message. I remember watching Bush act on that incident with the spy plane in China and thinking how incredibly inept the guy was. Most other countries elect someone who has the ability to be taken seriously outside of their own country.

So name a country that elects its leaders based on what foreign countries think...

Yup because we are comparing countries, and 1 person deciding they will rule a country (like Pinochet or Musharraf or any other despot) is in no way representative of that country and the views of the poeple, whereas an elected leader is representative of the views of a sizeable proportion of the people. So one comparison is meaningful, whereas the other has no meaning.

I disagree.

In what way do you consider Bush a moderate?

That would derail this thread even further... let it die my friend.

I dunno!

Neither do I.

 

[ScottishJohn]

Again... we would disagree with how far 'right' it is.

But you haven't been able to substantiate your disagreement by naming a country which has an elected government further to the right than the US.

So name a country that elects its leaders based on what foreign countries think...

Well I think Britian for example would never elect a Prime Minister who was likely to make a fool out of him/herself on the international scene, or hurt Britians interests through incompetence on the international scene. In fact when Blair hurt Britians interests through an incompetent decision to go to war in Iraq it damaged his standing a great deal, and drastically reduced his majority even when the main opposition party (the conservatives) were not in a position to be taken seriously as an alternative government.

I disagree.

So you think democracy is pointless, that unelected leaders are just as representative of a country as elected ones?

That would derail this thread even further... let it die my friend.

Actually I thought it might bring us back into the US, and back into discussing moderate politicians, and the characteristics thereof!

 

[arnegrim]

But you haven't been able to substantiate your disagreement by naming a country which has an elected government further to the right than the US.

Do you really want to go over this again... is Egypt more left-wing?

Well I think Britian for example would never elect a Prime Minister who was likely to make a fool out of him/herself on the international scene, or hurt Britians interests through incompetence on the international scene. In fact when Blair hurt Britians interests through an incompetent decision to go to war in Iraq it damaged his standing a great deal, and drastically reduced his majority even when the main opposition party (the conservatives) were not in a position to be taken seriously as an alternative government.

He's still PM... and are you saying that Bush's standing hasn't suffered?

So you think democracy is pointless, that unelected leaders are just as representative of a country as elected ones?

No... but to a point the 'unelected leaders' are representative. Either there are enough people that agree or tolerate the 'unelected leader' to keep them in power... or there is a civil war.

Actually I thought it might bring us back into the US, and back into discussing moderate politicians, and the characteristics thereof!

Budget-wise... GWB is a moderate... almost liberal.
Border-wise... GWB is a moderate...

 

[ScottishJohn]

Do you really want to go over this again... is Egypt more left-wing?

Well, yeah because we still haven't really been over it once. I keep on asking, and you keep on providing countries which either make a thin pretence, or no pretence at all of being democratic.

He's still PM... and are you saying that Bush's standing hasn't suffered?

Blairs support declined, despite having made a pretty decent job of everything else. Bushes support increased.

No... but to a point the 'unelected leaders' are representative. Either there are enough people that agree or tolerate the 'unelected leader' to keep them in power... or there is a civil war.

The support of a few elites with vested interests hardly counts as representative! If you are worrying about where your next meal is coming from, or about whether the police are going to beat up your family if you step out of line, it can make political protest difficult.

Budget-wise... GWB is a moderate... almost liberal.
Border-wise... GWB is a moderate...

Budgetwise Bush is irresponsible, and tax cuts for the rich is hardly a left wing policy. Border wise, the articles I have read suggest an keen interest in exploiting cheap immigrant labour.

 

[arnegrim]

Well, yeah because we still haven't really been over it once. I keep on asking, and you keep on providing countries which either make a thin pretence, or no pretence at all of being democratic.

Are there countries that are politically right of the US?

You say no, I say yes.

Are we comparing to a world spectrum or not?

Blairs support declined, despite having made a pretty decent job of everything else. Bushes support increased.

Really?!?

What are Bush's support numbers?

The support of a few elites with vested interests hardly counts as representative! If you are worrying about where your next meal is coming from, or about whether the police are going to beat up your family if you step out of line, it can make political protest difficult.

Yes. And when the rest of the world ignores your plight... it also makes it difficult.

Budgetwise Bush is irresponsible, and tax cuts for the rich is hardly a left wing policy.

1. My understanding is that Bush has not vetoed any spending because all the proposals have been within the guidelines set by Congress and approved by Bush.

2. There are many policies that are bastions of the 'left-wing' budgetwise that I feel are irresponsible. Does that matter to you?

3. The tax cuts affected everyone. The lower and middle class got the largest percentage tax cuts... stop spreading disinformation.

Border wise, the articles I have read suggest an keen interest in exploiting cheap immigrant labour.

Really?

So, the articles about Democrats looking for votes from illegals is true also then?