From Left to Right

[victorgonzales]

i feel bad for posting that it's just going to make things worse.

Things would have to be bad for them to get worse. I think it is a healthy discussion.

[tone-def]

I base my policy opinions based on history and legislation and how things have worked or not worked in the past . I actually spend a fair amount of time researching these things. I dont pretend to know all the political history of the world so I stick to my values when discussion that but when it comes to American policy and politics I am not shy about going into detail about why I think what I think.

That would explain your views on socialism. Maybe when China is the most powerful nation in the world your view will change a little. History would suggest socialism didn't work and thats mainly down to the fact the countries who took that direction were developing or 3rd world countries like Russia before it became the USSR and most of those countries were corrupt and had dictators, which is not what the theory of socialism and communism suggests. Although socialism moved russia into the industrial age those countries were not ready for left wing politics. In are countries we don't have a history with socialism in it. we're just entering the era of socialism now. As for the state of the economy thats down to the greedy banks making bad investments and giving loans to people that can't pay them back correct me if i'm wrong but this happens because of are greedy capitalist societies. What i'm trying to say is you can't really have an opinion from looking at history when history only tells one side of the story. Also looking at history will not take us anywhere new. were out growing capitalism, people need to be less materialistic, more sharing.

Actually the bad loans in America where a direct result of liberal policy that forced them to do so. Before the community reinvestment act was pushed back into effect in the 90s by all of the liberals and evenmany of the moderate republicans the banks stuck to their policies of only giving loans to people who had a fair probablility of paying back the loan.

The way this was made possible was injecting race into the issue. Liberals argued that since less black people where buying homes than white people we needed to change the rules for the poor so they could get houses. The liberals convinced many republicans by using claims of racism to anyone who dared to question the idea. Many republicans where afraid to lose votes and dropped their principles to support this idea.

The government liberals MADE this happen. Many republicans are to blame simply for the fact that they where to afraid of being called a ricist even though the issue had nothing to do with race. Another Aspect is we had liberals running fannie mae and freddie mac which where the federal mortgage companies our government used to back all these wellfare loans By the order of the Bill clinton administration. Over the last five years many republicans saw this failure comming and demanded that freddie and fannie be put under more strict review and regulation to ensure that this crisis didn't happen. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd where the main liberal force in assuring us for the last five years that republican worries had no substance and that these companies are too big to fail. In 2005 president Bush YES BUSH asked for legislation to set up review and regulatin of Freddie and Fannie. The Republicans answered by writing Senate Bill 190 (S.190) Which would have stopped this whole thing from happening. McCain was a cosponsor to this bill by the way. Can you guess what happened with this bill? It was flat out killed before even getting a fvote due to direct promise of fillibuster by the democrats in congress.
You can blame all the dominos that fell afterwards but the idea that you dont have to have credit or enough income to pay back a loan to recieve a loan is the direct cause of all of this and that is an idea 100 percent owned by washington Democrats. You can look up S.190 on Thomas in the year 2005 if you dont believe me.

Maybe I dont understand the exact role of socialism in Europe today but I DO understand the effects of it in American history and it always fails.

And I agree people need to be less materialistic. If they where the idea of being entitled to things you want and dont need and cannot afford would not be a democrat debate tactic and they would lose elections more often. Punishing those who did well through their own hard work to give to the true greedy who want things they have not earned but dont need is not a reflection of capitalism but simple human greed and jealousy.

that just sounds like a bad decision making. In the UK you need a decent salary and big deposit if you want a loan for your house. Over here we just put the poor people in basic housing and you can buy the house if you start earning more money. There's no pressure for them to buy a house (as far as i know). Socialists wouldn't encourage people to buy their own house. Both the American political parties are right wing although republicans are more so.

[livecollective]

delete this thread, looking at it induces vomit.



The conservatives know so much, their forward thinking policies are exactly what the world needs now. fck THE WORLD... WE ARE AMERICA...

[MINIMALTECHNOHOUSE]

I base my policy opinions based on history and legislation and how things have worked or not worked in the past . I actually spend a fair amount of time researching these things. I dont pretend to know all the political history of the world so I stick to my values when discussion that but when it comes to American policy and politics I am not shy about going into detail about why I think what I think.

That would explain your views on socialism. Maybe when China is the most powerful nation in the world your view will change a little. History would suggest socialism didn't work and thats mainly down to the fact the countries who took that direction were developing or 3rd world countries like Russia before it became the USSR and most of those countries were corrupt and had dictators, which is not what the theory of socialism and communism suggests. Although socialism moved russia into the industrial age those countries were not ready for left wing politics. In are countries we don't have a history with socialism in it. we're just entering the era of socialism now. As for the state of the economy thats down to the greedy banks making bad investments and giving loans to people that can't pay them back correct me if i'm wrong but this happens because of are greedy capitalist societies. What i'm trying to say is you can't really have an opinion from looking at history when history only tells one side of the story. Also looking at history will not take us anywhere new. were out growing capitalism, people need to be less materialistic, more sharing.

Actually the bad loans in America where a direct result of liberal policy that forced them to do so. Before the community reinvestment act was pushed back into effect in the 90s by all of the liberals and evenmany of the moderate republicans the banks stuck to their policies of only giving loans to people who had a fair probablility of paying back the loan.

The way this was made possible was injecting race into the issue. Liberals argued that since less black people where buying homes than white people we needed to change the rules for the poor so they could get houses. The liberals convinced many republicans by using claims of racism to anyone who dared to question the idea. Many republicans where afraid to lose votes and dropped their principles to support this idea.

The government liberals MADE this happen. Many republicans are to blame simply for the fact that they where to afraid of being called a ricist even though the issue had nothing to do with race. Another Aspect is we had liberals running fannie mae and freddie mac which where the federal mortgage companies our government used to back all these wellfare loans By the order of the Bill clinton administration. Over the last five years many republicans saw this failure comming and demanded that freddie and fannie be put under more strict review and regulation to ensure that this crisis didn't happen. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd where the main liberal force in assuring us for the last five years that republican worries had no substance and that these companies are too big to fail. In 2005 president Bush YES BUSH asked for legislation to set up review and regulatin of Freddie and Fannie. The Republicans answered by writing Senate Bill 190 (S.190) Which would have stopped this whole thing from happening. McCain was a cosponsor to this bill by the way. Can you guess what happened with this bill? It was flat out killed before even getting a fvote due to direct promise of fillibuster by the democrats in congress.
You can blame all the dominos that fell afterwards but the idea that you dont have to have credit or enough income to pay back a loan to recieve a loan is the direct cause of all of this and that is an idea 100 percent owned by washington Democrats. You can look up S.190 on Thomas in the year 2005 if you dont believe me.

Maybe I dont understand the exact role of socialism in Europe today but I DO understand the effects of it in American history and it always fails.

And I agree people need to be less materialistic. If they where the idea of being entitled to things you want and dont need and cannot afford would not be a democrat debate tactic and they would lose elections more often. Punishing those who did well through their own hard work to give to the true greedy who want things they have not earned but dont need is not a reflection of capitalism but simple human greed and jealousy.

Before i rant, i think some of the views aired on here really demonstrate what kind of real-life personalities people have, beyond the music.

This debate about socialism v capitalism / communism v capitalism / Left v Right / Liberal v Conservative etc etc (yawn...) etc....? its all part of the same picture, its just a magnification of the ways in which societies operate, both in a micro and macro context, and have been doing for thousands of years.

Sure there has been experiments with socialism, sometimes successful, sometimes not, but generally this approach only works where there is huge disparity in the numbers between the poor and rich.

Conversely, the capitalism approach suits country's where the wealth gap isnt as great.

People come together when they have nothing, they move apart when their wealth accumulates, it mirrors human nature in its rawest sense; we can be both sharing and greedy, depending on our situation and recent history.

There is no right or wrong way, a government should be flexible enough, by means of democracy and a wide range of political parties, do adapt to the situation at hand, we enjoyed unprecedented growth in recent times, it gave birth to our beloved music in a haze of drug fueled excess, but now we have to get up, face the comedown and realise that nothing lasts forever.

Please everyone, be careful of becoming too wrapped up in what is right and what is wrong, because you'll never find the answer, reaction to the present always occurs in the past, so were in a never ending game of catch up.

[Torque]

I think one of the biggest problems I've seen in the thread is that people are having a hard time separating Fiscal conservatism from social conservatism. What we had here in the US for the last 8 years was not a fiscally conservative government. They were far right wing social conservatives and right wing Fascists on foreign policy. Thats why Bush's faction of the party were referred to as Neo Con and not really Republican. They were in fact the Reactionary faction of the Republican party.

What Obama's deal is that he is from the Socially and fiscally Liberal wing of the Democratic party which amounts to straight up Socialism in practice.

Contrary to what many of you may think i am guessing generally that the majority of people in the US are Socially Liberal and Fiscally Conservative. In Detroit people are mainly this way. We like our guns, we like our civil rights, we don't like war but we also believe heavily in labor Unions. People here have a very strong distrust of Government and power in general whether it be economic or governmental.

I grew up in a small town about 40 miles north of Detroit where everybody hunted and we had Rallys for the "Michigan Militia" (a militia for our state of citzens started a long time ago to stand as the last line of defense for the people) in town every year. This is where my political view sprout from. I don't think they allow things like this in europe that i know of. i've been to protests in my life and seen cops and government troops beat the living sh!t out of people and i've been on the receiving end of that myself a few times. What i'm most afraid of is a police state and socialism has shown itself throughout history to be one of the quickest ways to get there.

[isaaclevy]

I thought this post was going to be about stereo panning. I am disappointed

\o/





.

[trak660]

"America Set To Invade Canada"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyCVhk4_pxc

It's a clip from a right-wing talk show.