What's wrong with right wing politics you ask?

[Deborah13]

No question about it, but the left actively speaks out against godliness as a lifestyle. At least the right has a semblance of godliness.

Seems to me there is a scripture that speaks to that issue.

 

[jasonc]

I guess my party would be "personal responsibility "

libertarian? that is a lot of that but the problem is that most want that lust and sin and don't want to pay satan.he collects his in this life and the next with you in gehenna. be a jerk don't pay satan.

 

[Deborah13]

libertarian? that is a lot of that but the problem is that most want that lust and sin and don't want to pay satan.he collects his in this life and the next with you in gehenna. be a jerk don't pay satan.

Libertarian is personal responsibility. So if you choose the wrong things and end up in gehenna you are responsible for that.

 

[jasonc]

Libertarian is personal responsibility. So if you choose the wrong things and end up in gehenna you are responsible for that.

the problem I have with that party is the legalization of drugs. uhm whom is really going to use the hard core drugs responsibly? even with pot we are seeing that problem in Colorado. synthetic versions aren't going away.

 

[Christ_empowered]

I'm jumping in on this kinda late. I consider my views, as they emerge, to be "progressive." I just think we should try to make the US more humane. My friend, she's from here but moved to England w/ her new husband, she talks about how much more humane England is. Worker rights, welfare benefits, adequate health care for all, sick days, vacation days, unemployment benefits. They don't have a huge homeless population like we do. They have less violent crime, and they treat those in prison better.

I think in America we've made most people suffer for the sake of the rich, or the possibility of becoming rich. That and the Horatio Alger myth that everyone, anyone, can pick himself up by his boot straps, and failure is all your fault. There's no room for error for most people, no safety net save what your family can provide.

And yet....

...I'm not pro-choice. I mean, from a practical standpoint, I guess keep it legal, but I'm not for it, personally. Gay marriage is OK by me, but I think marriage is just a contract in the secular world, anyway, and a poorly enforced one at that (notice our high divorce rate). I think that maybe, back when families were more intact and communities were more solid, we didn't need as much government stuff. Then again...until the 70s, the taxes in the US were a lot like the taxes in Europe (higher on rich people). There was apparently a sense of the "common good"--prison was for rehabilitation, mental hospitals weren't perfect, but they did have resources to care for people, and upward mobility was much more likely for more people. This hyper-individualistic, war of all against all idea that I think comes from the more nefarious parts of the right disturbs me. "Survival of the fittest." If it keeps up, we're going to be ever more at each other's throats.

 

[jasonc]

I'm jumping in on this kinda late. I consider my views, as they emerge, to be "progressive." I just think we should try to make the US more humane. My friend, she's from here but moved to England w/ her new husband, she talks about how much more humane England is. Worker rights, welfare benefits, adequate health care for all, sick days, vacation days, unemployment benefits. They don't have a huge homeless population like we do. They have less violent crime, and they treat those in prison better.

I think in America we've made most people suffer for the sake of the rich, or the possibility of becoming rich. That and the Horatio Alger myth that everyone, anyone, can pick himself up by his boot straps, and failure is all your fault. There's no room for error for most people, no safety net save what your family can provide.

And yet....

...I'm not pro-choice. I mean, from a practical standpoint, I guess keep it legal, but I'm not for it, personally. Gay marriage is OK by me, but I think marriage is just a contract in the secular world, anyway, and a poorly enforced one at that (notice our high divorce rate). I think that maybe, back when families were more intact and communities were more solid, we didn't need as much government stuff. Then again...until the 70s, the taxes in the US were a lot like the taxes in Europe (higher on rich people). There was apparently a sense of the "common good"--prison was for rehabilitation, mental hospitals weren't perfect, but they did have resources to care for people, and upward mobility was much more likely for more people. This hyper-individualistic, war of all against all idea that I think comes from the more nefarious parts of the right disturbs me. "Survival of the fittest." If it keeps up, we're going to be ever more at each other's throats.

keep child slavery legal tax it legalise it. less way of harming others when we sin. and NO mental hospitals were a JOKE then. I have a sister that is a ward of the state and they didn't know what she had and said she was autistic then.

smoke in the uk and see what they do to you in some hospitals. you smoke? to be fair some must quit to heal first even hear as advised by doctors. read what that link says. one hearing aid. restricted shoulder surgery too.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-devon-30318546

 

[Malachi]

Those aren't left/right issues either. The right is no less guilty of those things than the left.

TOG,
This is what I'm referring to courtesy of Wikipedia:

In the United States, conservatism is rooted in the

American Revolution and its commitment to republicanism, sovereignty of the people, and the rights and liberties of Englishmen while expelling the king and his supporters. Most European conservative writers do not accept American conservatism as genuine; they consider it to be a variety of liberalism. Modern American liberals in the New Deal do not disagree with that consensus view, but conservatives spend much more emphasis on the Revolutionary origins, with the Tea Party advocates using an episode from the 1770s for their name and some even dress in costumes from that era at their rallies. Historian Gregory Schneider identifies several constants in American conservatism: respect for tradition, support of republicanism, "the rule of law and the Christian religion," and a defense of "Western civilization from the challenges of modernist culture and totalitarian governments."

.

 

[jasonc]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/apr/28/doctors-treatment-denial-smokers-obese

yeah try walking with a bad hip too loose weight. uhm that is part of how they gained more weight.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Seems to me there is a scripture that speaks to that issue.

That's what I had in mind...'Having a form of godliness but denying it's power'. Sounds like the religious right to me. (Generally speaking, of course). Lot's of the right talk, little of the right walk.

 

[Deborah13]

the problem I have with that party is the legalization of drugs. uhm whom is really going to use the hard core drugs responsibly? even with pot we are seeing that problem in Colorado. synthetic versions aren't going away.

I don't know what has changed in usage from before legalization and afterwards. I've seen reports that say yes and others no.
And then people who would never admit using before and now will. And it must be a report that only considers recreational use.
I think it will be awhile before we will really know the effects of legalization.
If all drugs were legalized would people who don't use them now, use them if they were legal? I think that is the real question. To me if something is stupid it's stupid whether it's legal or not. It's quite apparent to me that the drug usage problem is huge now and nothing we have done has curbed it at all.
So would it get worse? I don't know. The psychology of people comes into play.
We spent a gazillion dollars fighting it to no avail. Put people in prison rather than getting them help if they are addicted. Then there is the whole gang and illegal drug combo wrecking havoc. The Mexican drug cartels, it would be nice to put them out of business and get them off the streets.

 

[reba]

.

That's what I had in mind...'Having a form of godliness but denying it's power'. Sounds like the religious right to me. (Generally speaking, of course). Lot's of the right talk, little of the right walk.

sure wish i dint agree with that so much.

 

[Mike S]

Are you okay with a right wing Uncle Sam making it so a working man's wages are enough without the help of a second income to pay ALL the bills for his family?
That doesn't mean Uncle Sam isn't moving people's tax dollars around to make that happen. It means he isn't doing it in a Robin Hood fashion....or in a way that enables immoral and careless and over indulgent or lazy behavior as the left does.

Government has no power to do that. The only way it will happen is if government just gets out of the way, lets businesses create jobs, and doesn't confiscate everyone's wealth to redistribute in welfare payments.

 

[ezrider]

Government has no power to do that. The only way it will happen is if government just gets out of the way, lets businesses create jobs, and doesn't confiscate everyone's wealth to redistribute in welfare payments.

The Government has gotten out of the way a long time ago. The government does not stand for the justice of the people, its representatives have sold themselves out to the corporate world long ago. Yes, our government and our representative have gotten out of the way of serving the people, while they wait on their lobbyist's and obscure think tanks and foundations to draft the legislation that they want implemented. And it is convenient for them too, because when the lobbyist's get congress to implement a law in their behalf that end up a failure, then they tell you the government is to blame.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Just throwing this out there, but maybe if we didn't make it so that being a politician was a career it wouldn't be so corrupted. I understand that politicians need to sacrifice a lot of time to do what they do, so compensation is a reasonable thing in return. More than that, it's Constitutional. But perhaps we could look into not making it so that if a politician is elected they're pretty much set to be financially stable for life??
I'm not sure how realistic my idea is, perhaps there is a reason their pay is so high and lifelong. If so please explain it to me.

 

[Mike S]

The Government has gotten out of the way a long time ago. The government does not stand for the justice of the people, its representatives have sold themselves out to the corporate world long ago. Yes, our government and our representative have gotten out of the way of serving the people, while they wait on their lobbyist's and obscure think tanks and foundations to draft the legislation that they want implemented. And it is convenient for them too, because when the lobbyist's get congress to implement a law in their behalf that end up a failure, then they tell you the government is to blame.

The government has very little constitutional authority to "serve the people." It's there to protect your rights and nothing else, certainly not "serve" you. We live in a country where the government's powers are intended to be few and limited, and we serve ourselves. Why then is congress "implementing laws to help lobbyists?" Part of getting government out of the way is for them to stop "implementing" such laws.

 

[TOG]

uhm ok so another carter then? where we get a military to inept to save its own people from the hostage takers in iran. one too weak and broken that if isreal did need us, send in the French. carter didn't break the dod per say, but he didn't make it strong. Russia at the time up to regean was buzzing over us a lot. regean let them now we could well make sure that the aircraft wasn't prone to an air traffic problem. Russia also buzzed west Germany a lot and france.

cuba buzzed Miami as well. regean wasn't perfect but he was the right person for that time. he was able to mobilise the left and the right to do what was needed. Obama cant even get his own party to do really do what he wants they do fight him as well and distance themselves from him. even when they do support him they are now back tracking that idea(Obama care and other less popular things).

the man you seem to like via his divisive ways is making it harder to be a cop, serve in the military. why? even in the prisons they are calling it a violation of their rights when told what they were told when they were booked into the facilities.

I wasn't talking about the military or the police. Those are internal US matters and don't concern me. I was referring to his economic policies. It was policies that were introduced by Reagan and continued by both Bushes and Clinton that lead to the economic crisis which had a domino effect that reached all over the world, including here in Iceland. It seems that many Republicans think that was all Obama's fault, even though it happened before he was even elected.

The TOG​

 

[TOG]

oh the left:
lets spend it on this union interest that supported me that costs more to build that road and does take way too long.
the right:
lets delay that road/ bridge and spend it on keeping taxes low on that business that wants to grow that donated to me.

Let me reword that to be (imo) a little more realistic:

The right:
Let's delay that road that ordinary people need and use so that we can keep taxes low for the rich.

The TOG​

 

[TOG]

if bridges are functional, how come we must tear them down? I can see if one is going to widen a road but we are paying for a new bridge that isn't being expanded a time or two in the past.

I don't know about the particular bridges you have in mind, but one reason that comes to mind is that nothing lasts forever. Maybe they wanted a new bridge before the old one broke and somebody got killed.

The TOG​

 

[TOG]

TOG,
This is what I'm referring to courtesy of Wikipedia:

In the United States, conservatism is rooted in the

.

Conservatism isn't a righ/left issue either. People often confuse the terms right/left with conservative/liberal and use these terms interchangeably. But those terms aren't interchangeable. Right-wing politics doesn't equate to either conservative and left-wing politics doesn't equate to liberal. As I posted earlier, right-wing politics consider a certain amount of inequality to be desirable, while left-wing politics encourage more equality. Conservatism is about keeping things the way they are and liberalism is about being open to change. In a society where there has been a right-wing government for a long time, those who want to keep to the right are conservative and those who want a more left-wing government are liberal. But in a society that has been governed by left-wing politics for a long time, those on the left are conservative and those on the right are liberal. In the parliamentary elections here in Iceland in 2003 and again in 2007, there was a party called the Liberal Party. It was the farthest right-wing party in the elections. The reason it was liberal was because we have traditionally had more center to left-wing governments.

The TOG​

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Government has no power to do that. The only way it will happen is if government just gets out of the way, lets businesses create jobs, and doesn't confiscate everyone's wealth to redistribute in welfare payments.

I am now beginning to see that is a pipe dream because free markets are fundamentally flawed at being able to deliver goods and services to all people.

By the nature of how free markets work it is necessary to intervene to keep the balance between those who have and those who need. I do think there is a good, fair, and honest way to do that. Government's job is to build incentives for business to, for example, control health care costs so it's affordable for the one income families who can't compete for goods and services with the majority of two income families that drive prices up. Government incentives to encourage that is fair, honest, and workable.