What Is Your Political Philosophy?

Although I think your head is in the right place, I believe that any type of taxation passes through bureaucrats and becomes a STOLEN income. I made a speech examining corporations last summer, how they gain their wealth to begin with. taxing some of the biggest corporations who control our government is 1. simply not enough, and 2. not fair.

I was not even aware of Jesus chasing money changers, not too familiar with that era. but thanks. simply put, I believe the special class hijacked national resources, and people need to take back what is rightfully theirs, instead of falling for the taxation scheme - I believe from the bottom of my heart that Jesus would agree today with me as he agreed 2000 years ago that taxation is a way for the rich to steal from the poor - always has been. I made a speech about that too, will upload it later, but here is the text of it:

MESSAGE TO THE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT DEMOCRATS -
Dear poor and middle class people - democrats represent us as much as stormfront, the white pride movement represents me. they do not, and give me a chance to explain why, because they will not give me a chance to speak on the media, which they control - and they decide who gets to represent us. but I HAVE lived in the ghetto, I have been beaten up by gangs, I had my car windows smashed.

These hypocrites on television, that call themselves democrats, talk about taxation as a way to help the poor. do you know that taxation was what kings always used to rob the POOR people through out history. but we as a nation have been so brainwashed, that masses of the poor people now actually believe that taxation is of the rich to help the poor. But let us realise that if we would not have been thrown out of the lands of our ancesstors, we would not be poor today in the first place. and let us ask ourselves: if a thief steals your car, is it enough to just let him give you a ride once in a while, or do you deserve to have your car back?

Let us take a look at why we are so desperate for money and how some of those corporations gained their wealth to begin with: examining corporations...
internet was invented by the people, why do we have to pay for it? because under socialism in places like soviet union there never even was internet? but soviet union WAS controlled by the same people who control America. just like democrat versus republican circus, just like Newt Gingrich fighting Mitt Romney for presidency - both from the same party.

Direct TV sold me a DVR, I recorded some movies on there, when i disconnected my service, I was no longer even able to watch those movies. this is my piece of equipment. When I first came to America, one guy gave me a bycicle....he was a so called minority, but he was a capitalist.

MESSAGE TO THE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT CONSERVATIVES -
If you think, that these republicans showcasing on the establishment media are conservatives, you must have been living in a socialist America for too long. let me tell you what is a conservative - ME. Besides underwear and socks, I buy all my clothes at at a thrift store, been doing this for 26 years, only the first year in America before I discovered thrift stores I bought clothes at regular prices. that is conservativism. Every time I see a road kill deer that does not look too bad, I pick it up, take it to my place, chop it up and store it in one of my freezers. me, my dogs and my chickens eat it. That is conservatism, and I am not trying to be a comedian, or be original. but I am saying that anyone who thinks they are more conservative than me is delusional, and I HAVE been called a socialist many times on political forums. Your republicans in Washington work hand in hand with democrats to expand the government. In front of cameras, on stage, they fight, behind closed doors, off stage, they party like a rock band after a show. And you know it.


PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE BUSH MORE THAN OBAMA OR OBAMA MORE THAN BUSH, What about the establishment media through which he speaks, do you believe other people showcasing on that stage? and can you see beyond one puppet? can you see the full deception? Because I can point you at a tentacle of an octopus and say look at that be careful, while it's other tentacle robs you from behind

 

I never believe in taking one side over the other. When we stick ourselves in the mud that is political parties we instantly find ourselves pitted against the differing beliefs of the other side. I don't want to get stuck in the mud so when I find myself in a discussion on politics I stand on the solid ground that lies in between

 

Oh come on, you have to choose one, liberals or democrats?

 

In the political circus it is not the politicians that are elected, it has become all about the money so it dosn't matter if the politics are left and right. What it comes down to is rather or not the politicians sercum to the will of the lobbies. So in short i choose the least corrupt. But their both pretty corrupt

 

As a pragmatist who embraces the gospel message as recently articulated by Pope Francis, I find myself enthusiastically supporting many of the current positions of mainstream Americans:

Of course, I also maintain the minority view in regard to Americans surrendering to the State the power to kill citizens in cold blood. Only a few - notably China, Iran, North Korea, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia - persist, and I'd much rather the US align itself with advanced nations in abandoning that practice. Otherwise, my political philosophy, embracing what demonstrably works, is manifestly that of America.


.

 

I hold views on both the right and left. Economics finds me on the left. However, I am not politically correct.

 

So you don't believe in economic freedom?

 

A little left of CENTER. And depending on which 'political test' I take (the longer the test, the more LIBERTARIAN I seem to come in as. Who knew??)

 

I would consider myself to be a left leaning libertarian, though I do have some conservative views.

 

I suppose that I would have to classify myself as a Libertarian (in a basic sense). I feel that our "two party" system has been broken for a long time and I think that we as a nation should get back to the vision that the founding fathers had for us which also means reinstating the Constitution as the law of the land. I believe in the REPUBLIC that we are supposed to be and not the socialist/Marxist Democracy that we've become.
I feel that we need to re-establish the individual rights and liberties that we have lost due to bad legislation and an ever growing and usurping government.
The definition of a Libertarian,... Wikipedia
Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free")[1] is a set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end.[2][3] This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty,[4][5] political freedom, and voluntary association. It is an antonym of authoritarianism

 

I'm still a dyed-in-the-wool pragmatist in accepting the empirical data that confirms those societies that have actually formed governance that works best - all regulated capitalistic systems with admirable social welfare components, nations that have achieved the Highest Quality of Life on earth (as is also demonstrated by the most prosperous, best-educated states in the US.)

For the hyper-ideologues in America, one negative tropism manifests itself conspicuously, a phobic obsession with "Liberals!" as their bête noire fixation.

Of course, it is not some heinous ilk of leftists that control the course of human progress, but moderates, those who eschew radical notions of all sorts - results-oriented realists. The radicals should be in a dither over the middle-of-the-road crowd that actually choose Democratic leadership, not some airy-fairy leftist boogeyman.

There may have been more "blue" states than "red" states in 2013, but a clear majority of Americans are ideologically at the center or right of center. How do Democrats continue to win elections if so few Americans identify themselves as liberal? The answer may lie with moderates, which, as a voting bloc, are solidly Democratic. If moderates begin voting with Republicans in the near or long-term future, there may indeed be a Republican revival on the national level.​

 

I believe corporatism is detrimental to the overall health of a happy, progressive, 21st century society. I believe both major parties (Democrat and Republican) support the corporatism that is slowly killing off the middle class that developed in the better half of the 20th century. I believe capitalism needs to be well maintained by the government and regulated.

I believe government plays a vital role in maintaining the balance between corporate profits over people, and all other needs a modern, civilized society needs. Government is not the enemy. A proper government with a secular humanist bent will work in the best interests of the greater good.

I'm an ex Republican. I consider the way they rule by outdated desert bull(*)(*)(*)(*) from thousands of years ago to go against the evolution of humanity and our potential.

I'm a liberal, I'd vote democrat solely because they represent my views a little better, but it's the Elizabeth Warren's of the democrat party who I think need to take hold.

 

Work. Get paid enough to live comfortably. Consensus within small and large communities (ideally).

 

The so-called regulation you speak of was instituted many decades ago. How's it working for you, AKRunner88? Now that Monsanto is controlling our food production in America, how are those anti-trust laws working for you? Hmmm. Yes, your government is playing a role, alright. Monsanto and other big corporations have our government right in their back pockets. While Europe and Australia have banned the toxins that are in our foods, along with the GMO intrusions, America is still allowing our foods to be tainted and engineered. Government IS the enemy. The sooner you wake up, the sooner this "greater good" will come to fruition. A "proper government"? There is no such thing. "... since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others." ~ Edward Abbey. You see, Human Nature 101 is the predictor of the conduct of other humans. So, what makes you think that other people - elected, appointed, born into royalty - are any wiser in the administration of YOUR rights than any other? You are foolish to believe that this is the case. The statists live by the compulsory confiscation of private capital, private enterprise, and private affairs. Since you have admitted to being a "liberal", you must deem it righteous to rule over others. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep, deciding what's for dinner. The sheep always loses. Believing that mob rule is just, over the rights of the individual, is tyranny. Our Founders created the Bill of Rights to protect individual rights (read the Anti-Federalist Papers). They also predicted that people would become indoctrinated, as you have been, into believing that the "greater good" is superior to individual rights.

If you believe that we are a "modern, civilized society", then, it should stand to reason that we are quite capable of governing ourselves. I own myself. If YOU choose to have someone else own you, that's fine. But, do NOT vote away MY rights, just because you believe that you should.

No government, in the history of mankind, has ever worked in the best interests of the greater good. They always conspire to work in the best interests of their own elite community.

The free market is quite capable of regulating itself, as long as people understand that they are the other half of the free market equation. In other words, if you fail to boycott when you see an injustice, or if the product does not meet your standards, you are not fulfilling your responsibility to make the free market work effectively. Expecting others to take on these responsibilities is the cowardly and lazy path. Hiring others to use force against your fellow humans is the ultimate in thuggery.

 

Well, I think government was to protect the citizens. Not run their lives.

 

So you vote for a party that believes in hand outs and diminishes the will to succeed? Interesting. You'd prefer that you be given everything rather than actually working for it. Nice. Ask the poverty class how well all of the handouts has worked for them since the 1940s.

 

Corporatism works well in scandinavia doesn't? And ironically, we're typically what US leftists would describe as "happy, progressive, 21st century societies".

 

I'm 1/4th libertarian, 1/4th Reagan republican, 1/4th Ed Abbey environmentalist and 1/4th Ross Perot Independent.

The biggest problems facing us are:
1) Overpopulation, for many reasons. As is evident in my state of California, there are too many sardines in the can. Not enough water to support us. Getting at the point where we have to choose between the fishing industry & our farmers (who send the food to the highest bidder while we eat veggies from Mexico).
The growth is coming from Mexico. Seal borders now. If we do not, growth will continue unabated and that means continued decrease in our quality of life. Most conservatives don't make this connection, but the more dense a population, the more liberal they are. The more rural, the more conservative. I'd like less population pressure so I can do normal things, like salmon fish in the state, without closures of the season because of too many sardines in the can. I'd also like to live in a republican community, away from liberal lunacy. The problem is that republicans are stridently anti-environmental. There's no in between or moderation on the environment.
2) Cultural rot- I don't think this can be solved with legislation. We must address it on a consumer level, and also learn to stop being afraid of political incorrectness, and do it without looking like regressive idiots. We must stop spoiling our kids and put them to work instead of buying them everything they want and teaching them that manual labor is something other people do. Not everyone should go to college. We need to stop acting a if being blue collar is something to be avoided. We also need to either eradicate the idea of group rights or assert our own group rights as white people.
3) Free trade- All agreements must be re-negotiated. We have sent our manufacturing base overseas and have made it next to impossible to have the same success the greatest generation did. Nothing should be imported into this country that Americans are producing. We have become a service based economy.
4) We need affordable health care. Had republicans come up with a plan, the socialists in power would not have had the opportunity to implement Obamacare.
5) Environment- Republicans were not always anti-environment and democrats weren't always wild-eyed man-made global warming-bots. I'd like to see a return to moderation on both sides.


There are more issues of concern, but that's my top five.

Torocat

 

So you actually believe the BS that you're writing? On a personal level, I would agree with the poster you're replying to. I would vote for the Democrats because they're more in line with the things that matter to me, and obviously don't matter to you; things like making certain that the economy of the US works for everyone, rather than a small handful of plutocrats. The predictable boiler plate talking point of "government handouts" is straight out of the mouth of right wing talking heads, with no basis in reality, but it sounds good to an ignorant base. Perhaps you have some empirical evidence to support your idea that any form of assistance diminishes the will to succeed. How exactly do you measure that "will"? What methodology did you use to come up with that? Peoples lives have been turned upside down by Republican policies, and now you want to call them lazy for not getting non-existent jobs, and when efforts are made to pass a Jobs Bill, you block those attempts, thereby keeping people in economic limbo, and then blaming them for not having a job.

Ask the poverty class how taking away food stamps that allows them to eat and feed their kids works out for them. Then you tell them to get a job if they want to eat, and block any effort to create jobs. The Republican idea is to simply make their poverty worse. I'm sure they'll love you for it. There is no morality to this ideology that proclaims itself to be the party of moral values.

Matthew 25: 35

For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

The Republican version:
For you were hungry and I cut your foodstamps, You were a stranger and I blocked immigration reform, You were sick and I tried to deny you affordable healthcare.
The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did to one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did to me.’

In the United States, we are a government of laws, not of men. But, it’s men that create our laws. The morality or immorality of our laws comes from the men that create them. One has to wonder just where the moral compass is located among those in a party that makes claims that this is a Christian Nation, or at the least, is guided by Christian faith.

When Paul Ryan for example, claims that an atheist author that believes in who states that a woman’s right to choose, is his guiding mentor for his entire career in politics, and then votes repeatedly, to restrict a woman’s individual right to choose what is in HER best interests, even after being raped, by claiming that his religious convictions demand it, questions come up. Ayn Rand would reject that thinking.

After proclaiming his abject devotion to Rand’s objectivist philosophy, and requiring his own interns to read Atlas Shrugged, he’s asked about the incongruity of his positions and obvious cherry-picking of her philosophy. Rand was totally consistent in her views, and her atheism and philosophy of self-interest is the unmistakable theme. Rational Self-Interest IS the philosophy. Ryan is adamantly opposed to anything that resembles “socialism”. When confronted by Catholic Bishops and Nuns that inform him that his economic plans are completely anti-Christian, Ryan then tells us that his real guiding light is St. Thomas Aquinas.
Aquinas? In the words of St. Thomas Aquinas, "Man should not consider his material possessions his own, but as common to all, so as to share them without hesitation when others are in need." ~ Thomas Aquinas
It appears that St. Thomas Aquinas was quite the socialist. Perhaps even a communist. Ryan is a devoted Catholic? What part of this recognized Saint in the Catholic Church does Ryan deny? Saints, broadly speaking, are those who follow Jesus Christ and live their lives according to his teaching. The word "saint" literally means "holy," and, in the New Testament, "saint" referred to all who believed in Jesus Christ and followed his teachings. Canonized saints can be venerated anywhere and prayed to publicly, and their lives are held up to Christians still struggling here on earth as examples to be imitated.
How does Paul Ryan pray to a Saint whose example he rejects?

Paul Ryan claims to have rejected Ayn Rand’s atheism. He claims that when he found out later in life that her philosophy was an "atheist philosophy" he rejected her in favor of St. Thomas Aquinas. Ayn Rand's philosophy is rooted in the concept of strident individualism. She wrote a book titled The Virtue of Selfishness in which she claims that any thought of self-sacrifice was abhorrent and should be purged from our being. Self-Interest was at the core of everything she was about. She addressed it in every page of dialogue in her books. "If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism men have to reject." ~ Ayn Rand.
Ryan claims to be a Catholic, and as a solid Catholic I'm sure he accepts the fact of the canonization of Aquinas. He certainly claims to follow his teachings. He named Aquinas specifically as his inspiration. Catholics pray to Saints. Aquinas is high on Ryan’s list of all-time great Saints.
I would like for Paul Ryan to square this position with the Tea Party and the conservatives that have every right to think that this is contrary to what they've been led to believe about him. It appears that he's literally hosing them for political gain. To go from Ayn Rand to St. Thomas Aquinas is quite a shift in position. So...Mr. Ryan, I don't think you can cherry pick what you like about a Saint and what you don't and still claim to be a Catholic. You claim to accept the teachings of a designated Saint of your own church. You either accept the teachings of Aquinas as you claim, including the quote above....OR you don't. If you don’t, then obviously you are rejecting the example of the Saint you claim to draw your inspiration from. If you do, then you are accepting the teachings of altruism that is poison to Rand’s philosophy and is likely to upset the Tea Party conservatives that support that view. So where exactly do you stand, with Rand or with Aquinas? If it's Rand, it's unbridled Self-interest she calls, “A Virtue of Selfishness”. If it's Aquinas, it’s Self-sacrificing altruism as taught by your faith. We just want to know where you stand...today?

And of course, Paul Ryan is merely one example of the hypocritical right. You can throw Rand Paul into that mix. He has to be the smarmiest Senator in Congress, whose only hope for fulfilling his ambition is through character assignation, We can all see the Soprano style of government that Christie would impose on the country. So...what you offer is talking point nonsense about "government handouts" robbing peoples will to succeed, and what we have are genuine examples of Republican hypocrisy and thug tactics.

What I would hope is that a modern country would recognize that within the economic system that we have, many people are going to get crushed along the way. If that's the case then the government owes it to it's people to insure that they get an education and have access to health care. Without those two basic necessities, you have no chance in this country.

 

I believe there may be moral justification for not confiding in the sincerity of civil Persons claiming morals, without some sort of morals test; especially with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.

 

ah, the old I care more than you line! I know of no man who wants the hungry to exist. The issue is how to end it. Since 1940 the old line of handouts has not lifted people out of poverty. In no fnnn country on the planet. So your party of care fails on this single point. In Wisconsin, the issue is not the same based on changes in philosophy on how to deal with those who have little. Teach them to live on their own without having to need and ask for handouts. It worked. So the point is this, what is it you wish, to keep those who have little down or pick them up to be self supportive?

Creating Government jobs will never be successful in that. Never has, as I already pointed out, based on history in other countries who have attempted to make everyone equal. The fact is, not everyone has the same talents, and just stating that everyone is equal doesn't put food on a table for a family. One needs to learn adapt and move up. Schooling and Training is the answer, not continued handout after handout. Oh, and making that group larger by ignoring what needs to happen to stop it, instead is more of the pandering that continues from the left!

 

I know plenty. They're all Republicans.

You don't end it by increasing it.

The object is to reduce it. The typical response to that from the right is to see that as a "handout" rather than a hand up. They have no objections to handouts to corporations or farmers. They're not opposed to "Handouts". They're simply very selective in who they hand something out to.

Wrong. We do live in a democracy and it's been more than clear that every attempt to remedy a situation by some people, is overturned by the greed factor that exists in others.

Teach them??? How pretentious of you to suggest that you have something to teach anybody. You embody all the worst things about a human being, and subscribe to the idea that there is virtue in selfishness. That's what you have to teach.

What we wish is for you to get out of the fu*king way, so that a jobs bill can be passed and people could have the chance to pick themselves up and be self-supportive. You can reduce unemployment, welfare and boost the economy of this country at the same time. People with money in their pocket spend it, and when they do, companies have to hire more people (at a living wage) to fill the demand for what they have to sell. When they aren't working, they have no income, and no money to spend. If they aren't buying goods and services, companies will lay off people because they can't afford to carry them if they aren't selling anything. Passing a damn jobs bill would be a good start, instead of more abortion laws. And if you want to reduce abortions, then stop trying to block contraception. It reduces unwanted pregnancies and that reduces abortions. It would be nice if Republicans actually began to use their brains once in a while. A little critical thinking never hurt. But of course that would be a Liberal thing to do, so we can't expect that.

Of course it can. During WWII we didn't make cars. We made tanks. We didn't make nylon stockings. We made parachutes. We put the entire country to work. By 1944 we had reduced unemployment from 14% in 1940, to 1.9%. Those were government jobs btw. So your premise is false on several levels.
I mentioned critical thinking, and that obviously is alien to conservathink.
You make this statement. "Creating Government jobs will never be successful in that"
You use what's called a "hard quantifier". Never. Can't. Won't. As a conservative you live in a world of absolutes. When you see or hear an argument, you take it apart to look at what's being offered.
So....Creating Government jobs will never be successful (in that); That's the conclusion you arrive at. So what are the premises you base your conclusion on?
P1. History shows other countries have tried to make everyone equal.
P2. People have different talents
P3. Saying everyone is equal doesn't put food on the table
________________________________________________
C. Creating government jobs will never be successful.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. In fact, it has nothing to do with any of them. What does government jobs have to do with any form of equality?? You actually seem to think that arguments that are presented by Republicans or conservatives, or *********s, aren't examined for their rationality? If you made a good logical argument, we'd listen.

We eliminated about 800,000 government jobs. We've replaced the private sector jobs that were lost during the Bush regime. But those government employees are now part of the unemployment figure that would be reduced if they were re-established. Where do you think those people went? Government jobs are simply jobs the government contracts with the private sector to do. Like road construction and infrastructure. Who do you think builds interstate highways?

Then don't cut education. We don't need to spend $400 million per plane on an new fighter that we probably won't ever need. We don't even fight those kind of wars anymore. You could put that money into education and training, but you cut spending on those things specifically. How does one get the training or education they need to "move up" when the resources to do that very thing are eliminated?

It's your own party that is cutting the spending for the areas that you want to be used to lift people out of where they are. That IS making that group larger. This is what happens when you argue with a person wrapped up in talking points. They've stopped using their brain so long ago that they can't think anymore. We want to invest in people, and in the country...and you say no. Can't afford that. But we can afford to wage wars or choice for a decade. We can afford a fighter jet that we won't use. Well done.

 

Worlds shortest political quiz.

http://theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php#

Mine comes up Libertarian. Same thing I always get. Too bad there's no viable Libertarian Party.

 

Yep, right in line with the party line from the left, you care more than me. thwwwwwwwwwt to you. No you have not replaced the jobs lost when Obama took office. No you haven't decreased the size of government. No the hungry have not benefited by any policy supported by the Obama team. Name some if you disagree.

The facts are, private sector jobs are needed. It has been discussed and argued for years now on how to do that, and again your team doesn't support it.

What happened to all of those people who worked in the factories once the war was over? hmm.... cuts in defense cause layoffs.

Again, you're one of those that thinks everyone's talents are equal and should be rewarded equally. There should be no Bill Gates, Michael Jordons, people with money that is. Right?

The facts are the inner city is still the same today as it was in the 1940s. No matter the mask you wish to wear.

The facts are that private business is where the solution lies. Ah, but stand in the way you and your team, and let's keep pushing the shovel ready jobs that do nothing. NOTHING to bolster the unemployed. NOTHING.

 

Dinesh D'Souza's Vision of America Echoes My Political Philosophy

When I read, watch or listen to him I constantly find myself in complete agreement with what he says.

And I recognize his perspective and point of view as being unique among all the other pro-America voices out there in the media.

He is a GREAT American.

Brilliant.

Courageous.

As important an observer of our age and times as anyone.

And mind you, I love Rush and Sean and Ann and Charles and Thomas.

Oh, and a new voice of intelligence and patriotism is Evan Sayet.

But more about him in a future post or thread.

This is about Dinesh D'Souza and how his views reflect my own personal political philosophy.

Enjoy!

[video=youtube;CLGteTGQTKc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLGteTGQTKc[/video]