The Republicans are hardly free-market libertarians. And the Democrats are not 'extremely' right-wing. I think the democrats wouldn't object to an NHS style healthcare system if they think they could convince the public, which they can't. Mind you the 'political spectrum' is not an exact science e.g libertarianism is as left-wing as it is right.
The Republicans are hardly free-market libertarians. And the Democrats are not 'extremely' right-wing. I think the democrats wouldn't object to an NHS style healthcare system if they think they could convince the public, which they can't. Mind you the 'political spectrum' is not an exact science e.g libertarianism is as left-wing as it is right.
The problem with the right wing / left wing descriptions is that people often use those terms when trying to describe libertarian / authoritarian or liberal / conservative or big government / small government or free-market / regulated market positions. Some people say a policy is right wing when they really mean it is authoritarian (government has to tell people how to run their lives, sometimes called Fascism). Others use right wing to mean conservative values whether that be social values or fiscal.
Most people in government are authoritarians no matter what other view points they have. People don't go into politics to stand on the side lines and watch the game or to be neutral referees. They want to influence the outcome of the game which means they have to use the powers of government to limit the freedom of the people.
Obama, in the last two years, could not get the House of Representatives to pass his immigration policies, his energy policies, his stimulus policies, his welfare polices, or his environmental polices so he enacted them on his own by issuing executive orders to his regulatory agencies. He also could not get many of his appointees approved by the Senate so he waited until Congress was out of session to by pass it by making what are called recess appointments. This is extremely authoritarian and fascist (don't get excited, I am not implying that Obama has Hitler's values, just his methods). Based on this you could call Obama very right wing. But his policies on using market regulation, taxes, to force one portion of population to buy food for 47 million other people and to remove work requirements for the receiving of welfare, is very liberal or left wing. But it is still authoritarian.
Most people in government are authoritarians no matter what other view points they have. People don't go into politics to stand on the side lines and watch the game or to be neutral referees. They want to influence the outcome of the game which means they have to use the powers of government to limit the freedom of the people.
Obama, in the last two years, could not get the House of Representatives to pass his immigration policies, his energy policies, his stimulus policies, his welfare polices, or his environmental polices so he enacted them on his own by issuing executive orders to his regulatory agencies. He also could not get many of his appointees approved by the Senate so he waited until Congress was out of session to by pass it by making what are called recess appointments. This is extremely authoritarian and fascist (don't get excited, I am not implying that Obama has Hitler's values, just his methods). Based on this you could call Obama very right wing. But his policies on using market regulation, taxes, to force one portion of population to buy food for 47 million other people and to remove work requirements for the receiving of welfare, is very liberal or left wing. But it is still authoritarian.
Fascist would be passing new laws that allow him to do things the system doesn't otherwise allow/didn't originally intend for him to do. What he's done is use every available legal resource to sidestep the worst congress in ages, which has no interest in getting anything done.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... -the-worst-congress-ever/
Why is it considered a failure when a government doesn't introduce new laws... in my opinion that should be considered a ****ing success
Congrats for echoing 100 retarded comments from that article.
They're the ****ing legislative branch of the government. It's their job to pass new laws. (And anyway, many of the laws they pass are simply extensions or new versions of existing laws, which they're not doing either.) The rest of the article does a pretty good job of detailing exactly the kind of laws they're not passing, and the effects their inaction is having.
The article is so heavily bias it's almost pointless reading. It's as pointless as reading the Guardian or Daily Mail. the article presents things as facts, when they clearly aren't.
By that definition the President could never be a Fascist since the President does not pass new laws, Congress does. The President only has the opportunity to sign laws that Congress sends to him. But Congress has abdicated its responsibilities to the executive branch by passing laws that setup agencies which then have the power to create regulations that have the same force as law. The fact that he has used the agencies to "sidestep ... congress" (being inept does not negate its constitutional authority), as you concede, to confer favors on his supporters is proof that he is an authoritarian which many would link only to the right wing, which really was my point. Because of Mussolini's and Hitler's WW2 actions fascism has taken on a very negative connotation and is now only used by liberals to describe conservatives but, in the 1930's the liberals were quite receptive to fascism (Will Rodgers said of Mussolini that there is nothing wrong with having a dictator if you have the right one.) But if it distresses you we can just leave it that Obama is an authoritarian and forget fascism.
By the way, "new laws" does not automatically mean "good laws". I can only think of two major programs that the federal government has created since World War 2 that have been worth the money spent on them or have not had terrible unintended consequences. Just because I don't want the federal government to do or fix something doesn't mean that I don't think that a problem shouldn't be handled but in a different manner.
Don't forget that Obama decreed that certain illegal immigrants are to be granted amnesty without letting Congress or the citizenry have any say whatsoever. That's pretty authoritarian if you ask me.
lol, you must not be reading many FOX News comment sections. Obama's routinely described as a socialist-communist-fascist-homosexual by conservatives.
Such as?
In modern definition we shouldnt even use liveral/conservative or right/left wing etc. All we need to know is that the same arguments exist that did from the beginning. America will continue to argue about the same things. Essentially the arguments stay the same and the names change. I recommend a brief read of The Thirteen American Arguments, some interesting insight, and I predicted most of the first chapter by just the title, not even reading it. However, the later chapters hit on some interesting thesises.
The word you're looking for is "theses".
New World Order illusionists will choose the US president anyway, nothing to do here.
......why do I think you're not a Romney supporter?
LOL I don't think that there are any Romney or Obama supporters this election. Nah. We're all going to vote for the one we think sucks the least.
http://www.isidewith.com
Quiz thing a la The Political Compass. Tells you your compatibility with the Presidential candidates according to stances on various issues.
Quiz thing a la The Political Compass. Tells you your compatibility with the Presidential candidates according to stances on various issues.
20% with Mitt Romney, not a surprise. 75% with Obama and my best match is Jill Stein with 93%. Also 94% with the green party. Also, apart from bible bashing hicks, who doesn't believe in the theory of evolution? Are there seriously Presidential candidates that don't?
Exactly the same results
I had 92% Stein (Green Party), 88% Obama, 74% Alexander (Democratic Socialist Party), 7% Romney.
http://www.isidewith.com/results/52982278 hope that works
88% Ron Paul
77% Romney
21% Obama
I hope Romney realizes he can gain a lot of support by 'stealing' some ideas from Libertarians. If I were President I would save myself a lot of work and just say 'let the states decide.' If people feel they can't live under the policies of their state there are 49 more to choose from...thereby increasing competition between states which is healthy in a federation.
77% Romney
21% Obama
I hope Romney realizes he can gain a lot of support by 'stealing' some ideas from Libertarians. If I were President I would save myself a lot of work and just say 'let the states decide.' If people feel they can't live under the policies of their state there are 49 more to choose from...thereby increasing competition between states which is healthy in a federation.
I'm scared that Romney might have a chance. He's a maniac.
Unfortunately we're talking about a country that voted Bush in twice. I share your fear.
Yes because medicare has worked so well for us, Obama hasnt ended the war in afghanistan yet, and hasnt pulled us from the recession yet. I guess romney couldnt do too much damage
From the mouths of babes...
US Elections 2012
(493 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG