• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dems at risk of losing Obama's old Senate seat

the makeout hobo said:
I'm not trying to avoid it, I just am not as concerned as you are. Almost every president in recent history has raised the deficit, don't act like Obama is special here.
Click to expand...

He tripled it that is outrageous and more than anyone else in history.
 
the makeout hobo said:
Source?...
Click to expand...

Federal Budget Deficit For 2009 Projected To Triple Previous Record


The federal budget deficit for 2009 will reach a record $1.6 trillion, far higher than 2008’s record deficit of $455 billion, according to both the OMB and CBO.

RealClearPolitics - Obama Cedes the Center


The White House now dismisses Tuesday's losses as the reflection of "local issues" -- as though the Virginia outcome was determined by zoning disputes on the proposed site of a new 7-Eleven. When one of the primary concerns of the electorate is the direction of the economy, all politics is national.

By creating deficits unequaled as a percentage of the economy since World War II, by proposing to nearly triple the national debt in the next 10 years, by using the economic crisis as an excuse for the massive expansion of government authority over health care, Obama has become a polarizing figure. Of course, some Republicans thrive on ideological combat and would seek it even if unprovoked. But it is Obama's tax-and-spend ambitions that have united Republicans of every stripe in opposition, put fiscally conservative Democrats in an impossible bind, and ceded the economic center to Republican candidates in Virginia and New Jersey.
 
Last edited:
EpicDude86 said:
Ahh then we're thinking of two different scales. yes, on the scale you're referring to, fascism wouldn't be left wing. But the modern political scale isn't about equality. Unless you count that square bullcrap...
Click to expand...

What is the basis of the modern one dimensional political spectrum? Academically, the left-right political spectrum is still related to equality. I rarely hear this basis defined which leaves people prone to manipulation. People hear a pundit say fascism is left-wing and it serves its purpose to discourage people from considering left-wing ideology.
 
Helte/2Skelter said:
What is the basis of the modern one dimensional political spectrum? Academically, the left-right political spectrum is still related to equality. I rarely hear this basis defined which leaves people prone to manipulation. People hear a pundit say fascism is left-wing and it serves its purpose to discourage people from considering left-wing ideology.
Click to expand...

The scale to which I'm referring is based on Government interaction or involvement. Hence Anarchy being extreme right and Authoritarian being extreme left.
 
EpicDude86 said:
The scale to which I'm referring is based on Government interaction or involvement. Hence Anarchy being extreme right and Authoritarian being extreme left.
Click to expand...

A scale created by libertarians to make themselves feel better.
 
EpicDude86 said:
It makes sense to me :\ Modern Liberalism seeks to have more government intervention and conservatism seeks to have less.
Click to expand...

It makes sense to you. Well if it makes sens to you, by all means, let's all adopt it!

Modern Conservativesm, the same people who bring up anti-sodomy laws and oppose marriage equality, who want to regulate abortion, who in power often give corporations huge tax breaks and subsidaries, who argue for a larger military, who want schools to have public prayer?:roll:
 
the makeout hobo said:
It makes sense to you. Well if it makes sens to you, by all means, let's all adopt it!
Click to expand...

That's just the scale that I've seen used a number of places, besides that 2d one and such.

the makeout hobo said:
Modern Conservativesm, the same people who bring up anti-sodomy laws and oppose marriage equality, who want to regulate abortion, who in power often give corporations huge tax breaks and subsidaries, who argue for a larger military, who want schools to have public prayer?:roll:
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying...Though "Modern" anything isn't what it might have been. Clearly this is the case with many Political ideologies and Politicians. I can call myself whatever I want, doesn't mean I'm a shining example of that ideology.
 
EpicDude86 said:
That's just the scale that I've seen used a number of places, besides that 2d one and such.
Click to expand...

It's usually used in a more complex way than you're suggesting.

I see what you're saying...Though "Modern" anything isn't what it might have been. Clearly this is the case with many Political ideologies and Politicians. I can call myself whatever I want, doesn't mean I'm a shining example of that ideology.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to say the majority of modern "conservatives" aren't really "conservatives"?
 
the makeout hobo said:
It's usually used in a more complex way than you're suggesting.



Are you trying to say the majority of modern "conservatives" aren't really "conservatives"?
Click to expand...

I'm saying a majority of everyone aren't who they say they are...
 
EpicDude86 said:
I'm saying a majority of everyone aren't who they say they are...
Click to expand...

Ok... it seems to me that if the majority of people who identify as something have a certain belief, then that is the belief of people with that identity.

Another problem with your schema... Let's say we have two countries. One of them infringes on a lot of social liberties, like Free Speech and the like, but has fairly low taxes and little government intervention in business. Another country has lots of social programs and business regulation, but has a very good record on social liberty. Wouldn't your measurement system put them at about the same point?
 
the makeout hobo said:
Ok... it seems to me that if the majority of people who identify as something have a certain belief, then that is the belief of people with that identity.

Another problem with your schema... Let's say we have two countries. One of them infringes on a lot of social liberties, like Free Speech and the like, but has fairly low taxes and little government intervention in business. Another country has lots of social programs and business regulation, but has a very good record on social liberty. Wouldn't your measurement system put them at about the same point?
Click to expand...

That's the scale I'm learning more about atm. But no they wouldn't necessarily be the same.
 
EpicDude86 said:
The scale to which I'm referring is based on Government interaction or involvement. Hence Anarchy being extreme right and Authoritarian being extreme left.
Click to expand...

Sure. I think you would agree that using the one-dimensional political spectrum is fairly useless without defining a basis. People often take left-right to be some kind of absolute frame of reference, and it only serves to their confusion to hold back on defining a basis. Indeed political spectra are coordinate dependent. To further the confusion is that left/right is associated with ideologies on the basis of equality, so when someone decides to define one side as left and the other as right, the usual suspects on the left may seem a bit unusual appearing on the right. For instance, on the basis of your political spectrum true communism would be far right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom