The Political Discussion Thread

[lordofseas]

As a Canadian who is Liberal (My reasoning for this is because your a member of "Gateworlders Against Racism and Discrimination") what would you like to see happen in your homeland?

To be fair, that's a group any GWer should be a part of.

What I would want to happen is for the Conservatives to have a strong minority government, with the NDP and Liberals equal in seats, and the Green Party to fill the rest. No Bloc. I find that the Conservatives plans on defense and the economy are quite good, but I disapprove of the Bloc entirely.

[Col.Foley]

do you, like
ever read all of the posts i make? i made a post not even three pages ago talking about an idealized moral code

hell, we've talked about morality in the past.

Honestly? No. And I do appologize, in general, I do not remember those conversations.

As a Canadian who is Liberal (My reasoning for this is because your a member of "Gateworlders Against Racism and Discrimination") what would you like to see happen in your homeland?

So conservatives and Libertarians cannot be against rascism?

[Joachim]

Let me repost it for you, Foley:

There is an objective basis for morality ingrained within the human condition; this basis for morality, this general, loosely defined set of principles are extrapolated upon differently between people and cultures. Basic tenants such as not aggressively provoking conflict (or: being rude, cruel, mean, violent (this impacts self-survival)), not killing (this impacts species survival), incest between opposite genders (impacts species survival) and ultimately all others have a basis in our evolutionary psyche.

it is from this that our individual and collective sense of morality is derived; it is also because these principles are loose and that the human condition may vary that there are variations in moral codes.

at its most simple and its most broadly reaching, our ideal moral code can be described thus: do whatever you can to do the most amount of good, while inflicting the least amount of bad; while, in this case, defining good as anything that pushes towards the satisfying of ones will and the promulgation of ones happiness as they choose it, and bad as being the infringement of that. this is not a blind promotion of hedonism, however, simply a statement that the only thing that can apply meaning to the world and to our lives is our sense of emotional fulfillment; we ought, however, to strive for the greater good, for long-term prosperity over simple and incredibly temporary benefits. morality is... a balancing act between contrasting forces, tinged with elements of absolutism (objectivity) and relativism (subjectivity).

[Galileo_Galilee]

Have you ever considered the possibility that Bin Laden is simply a braggart trying to take credit for the work of other people and is probably nothing more than a figurehead?

[Joachim]

...wrong thread?

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Honestly? No. And I do appologize, in general, I do not remember those conversations.

So conservatives and Libertarians cannot be against rascism?

I guess it does sound like im saying that. Im sorry it was a bad choice of words. I mean to say that when it comes to equal rights for other races and homosexuals I think that's more of a Liberal thing to care about.

[Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble]

It seems people in the west are turning to Torys. The UKs biggest party is Conservative, the republicans did well in the US mid terms and now Conservatives win in Canada.

God help us all .

I don't get this discussion about consent, yes it is a good philosophical debate. But for whatever reasons we decide things, you respect peoples right to make decisions so long as it doesn't effect the same rights of other people.

If an adult of sound mind says they want to do something that won't hurt anyone else they should be allowed to do so. We clearly have laws for a reason but drugs and sex are issues that only effect the people involved, the prostitute/client and user.

[s09119]

It seems people in the west are turning to Torys. The UKs biggest party is Conservative, the republicans did well in the US mid terms and now Conservatives win in Canada.

God help us all .

I don't get this discussion about consent, yes it is a good philosophical debate. But for whatever reasons we decide things, you respect peoples right to make decisions so long as it doesn't effect the same rights of other people.

If an adult of sound mind says they want to do something that won't hurt anyone else they should be allowed to do so. We clearly have laws for a reason but drugs and sex are issues that only effect the people involved, the prostitute/client and user.

The Republicans and Democrats swap every other election, though. If not ever 4 years, then usually ever 8. We can never decide which one we hate more over here

[Galileo_Galilee]

I can't stand either of them. Between the two of the the country is screwed. They do not represent the people's interests, here in America anyhoo.

[Col.Foley]

Have you ever considered the possibility that Bin Laden is simply a braggart trying to take credit for the work of other people and is probably nothing more than a figurehead?

Indeed.

I guess it does sound like im saying that. Im sorry it was a bad choice of words. I mean to say that when it comes to equal rights for other races and homosexuals I think that's more of a Liberal thing to care about.

Interesting. And not true, but interesting.

Point one is that why I do not side with liberals and wave the anti racisist flag and sing kumbaya with liberals when they go to put up facebook groups and GW groups and make a big deal about it is mainly because I do not agree with the solution that is usually presented in such places. For instance a few months ago a couple of my facebook friends created a page in response...an event...in response to hate against Muslims at a certain event. Now at the time I did not quite know the full facts so I was hesitant about that, and I was also hesistant because I felt that it could easily turn into a bash the right wing thing and to jump on the band wagon of look at all these idiot tea partiers! Republicans! RIGHT WINGERS!!! I will not substitute one form of bigotry, for another. Which is why I do not often stand with many people on here and elsewhere who do these things.

Though I do stand against racism, and I am right at this moment, after a fashion.

Point two: The liberals that I run into, at least the sentiment, is fundamentally different then what I believe to be. I am very much for the rights of homosexuals and minorities, but they are the same rights of me. And if I do not have the right to marry...which I do not...then no one else does. If I do not have the right to health care...then no one else does.... And if I may be so bold if I do not have the right to collectively bargain or be served at a restaurant...then no one else does. We have the rights of men, of individuals, not of man. And no one else can be, or should be, given different rights because there are fewer of them, or that they have been oppressed, or what not. I will stand firmly against oppression, idiocy, and bigotry of individuals and of groups. But I will not allow this issue to be used to create more Government control in all of our lives.

The Republicans and Democrats swap every other election, though. If not ever 4 years, then usually ever 8. We can never decide which one we hate more over here

Uh no. Its just that, for the last twenty years or so, the two parties have been virtually the same. It amazes me (partially because there are few who are articulating this point) that pretty much every single policy descision that Obama has made is just a bigger, more expanisive, more intrusive, descision then a Bush era Policy. In other words it has progressed. From Health care, to education, to how they treat the economy, the War on Terror/ Libya, the boarder, and other things. In fact the only area that I see the potential for ANY difference is in their tax policies but even then Bush still started bailing people out with money we did not have. Don't get me wrong, Obama's policies are much worse to us right now then Bush's is, but they are still heading us down the same general course. As I think was outlined in Tragedy and Hope, but do not quote me on that.

Which is why Labels are really unimportant. Many people on here and liberals that I have seen in general do not seem to even recognize it. These are the same policies that you have been *****ing at over the last 8 years or so! These are the same policiies that Obama expressly warned us that George Bush was doing. and the complaint that I get from most people on here is that Obama is a Conservative. Obama is Bush. No Obama is a Liberal or a Progressive, Bush is a Conservative, or a Progressive. They make the government larger and progress to whatever their objectives are. But Bush is certainly not a kind of Conservative that I think many of my Conservative friends would recognize as being good, or recognize as being there. Yes he was good on a few things...I guess. But I wonder if the liberals/ et all types of left wingers here, would recognize that maayyyybbbbeee Obama's liberalism, is not your liberalism. Though by some of the comments I read on here I wonder if even that is true, that maybe Obama's sentiment is widely echoed in the Liberal establishment...but then Bush should have been well liked...oh well.

The point is that if this country is to survive and move on we need radical, new, out of this box that we painted for ourselves, type of thinking. Old thinking but put in a new context and reinvigorated for the threats that we face today. The rhetoric of Ronald Reagan turned into pure action times a million.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

I just see equal rights as a left platform more so then I do with the right. The reason I joined that group was because I saw a lot of anti gay rhetoric on gateworld and even though im not gay It really pissed me off to see all these crazy comments. If you look at the gatworld facebook group someone said "it's sad that our world has become so perverted so that it now accepts gays..." in response to a gay character being on SGU. If there are groups on gateworld where people talk about theories that the President wasnt born here and how they want him to be killed I think we can have a group against hate.

[Col.Foley]

I just see equal rights as a left platform more so then I do with the right. The reason I joined that group was because I saw a lot of anti gay rhetoric on gateworld and even though im not gay It really pissed me off to see all these crazy comments. If you look at the gatworld facebook group someone said "it's sad that our world has become so perverted so that it now accepts gays..." in response to a gay character being on SGU. If there are groups on gateworld where people talk about theories that the President wasnt born here and how they want him to be killed I think we can have a group against hate.

Well you can talk about anything you want to or not. Talking about theories and accepting theories and asking 'what if' are two entirely different things. So is speaking out in brief anger at the situation that we face. Its wrong mind you but that is hardly a mission statement of any group here on GW, and talked about all that much or all that seriously.

[Joachim]

the point is that if this country is to survive and move on we need radical, new, out of this box that we painted for ourselves, type of thinking. Old thinking but put in a new context and reinvigorated for the threats that we face today. The rhetoric of ronald reagan turned into pure action times a million.

>new thinking
>ronald reagan

/:

[Col.Foley]

>new thinking
>ronald reagan

Well new thinking IE different from the current brand of thought that is being offered by both political parties and large swaths of the electoarte Thinking that at the very least would some what resembel Reagans rhetoric...on a lot of issues, but not in a lot of his actions unfortanatley. thinking that is, old...but not being tried now...so it would be new...just like the current government is pursuing 'new ideas' but ideas that go back to antiquity.

[Joachim]

Ronald Reagan is the "in" now, and it has been for the past few decades. Anything remotely reaganist would hardly be new.