Political preferences

[Phreakmeister]

What are you guys' (and girls') political preferences? What party do you support? What movement? What political philosophy?

------------------
Do you believe in death after life?

[Sjax]

I am a socialist, as I have stated before. Not in the old USSR kind of way, but in the modern european kind of way, something like the left wing of the american democrats. i am a member of the danish socialistic peoples party, who is fighting agianst pollution and racism.

What about you Phreakmeister?

[Phreakmeister]

I'm a critical left-winger. I got my own opinions, and I am being led by my own morals and opinions. I don't really like to label myself as anything. But my opinions are left of the middle. I admire the likes of Trotski and Guevara. I think communism in theory is a good system, which was practiced wrongly. I think we should never close our eyes to mistakes of any system, left or right. So I look at the world with a critical view, regardless of the system.

I think the economy should be there to serve the people, not the other way around. I think people should be judged by their character more, and not income or race. I believe in equal distribution of power, knowledge and wealth.

I feel kinda like connected to the demonstrators in Genova (besides the Black Block).

In short: I'm a trotskist-marxist-guevarist-phreakmeisterist. Or something like that.


------------------
Do you believe in death after life?

[ogb]

It's a question that can't be answered in general. It depends on the situation of the country and the political opinion has to go hand in hand with the actual development. Concerning the economy I am tending to a liberal party that demands a small state and wants to create a good climate for the economy with low taxes and a smaller social net (which would be an automatical consequence). Treating everybody equal and other phenomenons of communism already proved to fail, that's why I am a strict opponent of all movements to give the state more power.

Concerning other aspects of life I'd tend to a Bavarian conservative party.

[This message has been edited by ogb (edited February 05, 2002).]

[Phreakmeister]

I personally support a well-constructed and wide social system. I think, that if people are not able to work anymore, we as a society have a moral obligation to help them. For instance:
my father is a train driver (I don't know the proper English word for it). A colleague of his got smashed between two trains, and lost an underarm because of it. He will never be able to work anymore. I think, that we owe it to people like this to help them through.
I also think, that we owe it to the elderly to give them a nice end of their life. They have worked so hard for us, they worked their @$$e$ off, just to get the economy to where it is now. They deserve a reward for that.

I don't believe in privatization. There are certain sectors in the economy is not needed. Banking is one example. A central bank suffices to guarantee the stability of the economy. But what is happening right now: pension funds are being privatized, hospitals are being privatized, every single part of the social system that helped make Europe a strong economy after the war, is now being privatized. I think that is absolutely the wrong way.

I tend to lean to Cuba, as far as the social policy is concerned.

I strongly believe in a critical press. I think, that if mistakes are being made by the government (which happens), the press has to be able to reveal it. For the sake of the people. As John Locke already said: "The welfare of the people is the highest good"
States oughta be there for the people, instead of the other way around.
I also think, however, that gossip magazines oughta be banned, because they convert and corrupt the truth into lies and semi-lies.

Amen


------------------
Do you believe in death after life?

[Idnew]

I'm a conservative and basically Rebublican, but it depends on the candidate that is running and his views. I actually feel as for as being the President goes if you leave out the dirty laundry Clinton wasn't too bad.

------------------
(ô¿ô)Proud member of the Dumb Laws Mod Squad so watch it!*smile*

Attitude Ajustments Gladly Performed(ö¿ö)

My Home Spot (http://members.tripod.com/~freeatlast_3/Doing_Whatever.htm)

Brain Mania (http://www.brainmania.com)

Cosmic Coffee Shop (http://pub83.ezboard.com/bcosmiccoffeeshop)
Meet The Squad (http://www.geocities.com/idnew52/Mod_Squad_Poster.htm)

[Serendipity]

I'm more or less leftwing, with reservations. No one political party represents my views, but I can see good and bad things about communism, capitalism, ecologism, and even anarchism.

[Phreakmeister]

As far as being the president is concerned, Clinton wasn't all that bad. His policy spread the wealth rather equally amongst the people, he had a good foreign policy, he did sign the Kyoto protocol, etc.
The Bush administration is sailing a very isolationist course. Although this may be good for the US in the short term, it is not good for the rest of the world, so in the long run it is not good for the US either.
Just to give a few examples: Cancelling the Kyoto-protocol, drilling for oil in the Arctic, walking away from the anti-racism conference in Durban, etc.

Clinton may not have been a wonderful husband, but neither was Kennedy. Clinton isn't the first adulterous president.
But whether or not he was, as a president u gotta judge him by what he does as a president, not as a husband. And as a president he was good.

------------------
Do you believe in death after life?

[TAHUTI]

Originally posted by ogb:
It's a question that can't be answered in general. It depends on the situation of the country and the political opinion has to go hand in hand with the actual development. Concerning the economy I am tending to a liberal party that demands a small state and wants to create a good climate for the economy with low taxes and a smaller social net (which would be an automatical consequence). Treating everybody equal and other phenomenons of communism already proved to fail, that's why I am a strict opponent of all movements to give the state more power.

Concerning other aspects of life I'd tend to a Bavarian conservative party.

[This message has been edited by ogb (edited February 05, 2002).]

Oh, Boy. That party would be the CDU, right? I've been gone from Germany for 20 years, and I've made a nice life for myself in this country. But one thing I can do without is the fact that this country has no basic social service net. Whatever it *does* have in this regard (welfare and some related sercices) isvailable not to everybody, but only to those who are truly down and out. And you have to *qualify* to receive them.


This means you have to go through a humiliating, privacy-invading process in order to satisfy the government that you are officially a pauper. This type of system creates a large gap between rich and poor, and the middle class is becoming more and more non-existant.


You say you favor less government. Are you saying that you want the social situation in Germany to become like the one we have here? I love living in the US, especially since I moved to NYC a few years ago. Love NYC. But even *it* is not immune against the federal policies we have in this country that create a wide disparity between classes, and offers no basic security and benefits that would be available to *everybody*, regardless of income.


In the US, people focus too much on income; they have an obsession with it. Your income has to be very low before the government offers you any type of service (services that are available to everyone in Germany and similar countries). This policy creates a huge underclass. If you think Germany should go in this direction, try living in the US, where, even if you have a good job, as I do, you have no real security, because it can be taken away at any time and for no good reason. And your health benefits (if you are lucky enough to have them) go right out the window with it. Retirment? Forget about it. In Germany it is taken for granted that people will get retirement benefits. Here you have to save up your own, or you are up s***'s creek.


On the other hand, I have heard that people in Germany are *forced* to retire at age 65 to make room for the younger work force to move in. This, in my opinion is the definition of discrimination. In the US you can work as long as you want. Many things here better or as good as in Germany; don't get me wrong.


But the ongoing lack of social safety and dignity for all citizens is one major criticism I have about the US. Sorry I'm rambling. But this is one of my pet subjects, and I tend to get passionate about it. http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif

[CBranski]

I lean Republican, but like most people I cannot identify with the platform of any one party. Some people may consider that wishy-washy, but I just call it the long lost American tradition of thinking. While I agree mostly with Republican economic policies, (and no I'm not rich) I find many of the "social" conservatives to be over the bend-what goes on behind my door is none of your business.

And oh, Phreakmeister, Clinton was NOT a good president. As for his distributing income to the poor, bear in mind that the gap between rich and poor grew during his presidency.

------------------
Tony Soprano for Sherriff!

[Phreakmeister]

I know, that is a result of capitalism. One of the consequences of capitalism is a widening gap between rich and poor. But under Clinton it grew less rapidly than under his Republican predecessors.

Who I see as good American presidents: Lincoln and Roosevelt
Who I see as horrible American presidents:
Wilson, Nixon, Reagan, George W. Bush jr.

------------------
Do you believe in death after life?

[ogb]

@TAHUTI: it's CSU, CDU can be elected everywhere else. And the liberal party is FDP.

Well, we got 4.2 mio unemployed people - and we got 1.5 mio open jobs, partially even since years. Independent researches tell that about 1/3 of the unemployed people don't want a job. You can't demand that those people must be feeded by the state. Of course you have to register as unemployed - this is part of the philosophy that, if you want to have something, you have to demand it; no law system works different.
The social barriers in Germany are too high. A reform of the employment sector is unevitable. For each € the employer pays to a employee, he has to add 40 cent for the state. If you then add the employees can hardly be fired because of the exaggerated security of tenure, then you don't have to wonder if firms don't employ enough. They simply have no possibility to fire them if the market isn't promising.
And millions of jobs could be created in the service sector. The problem is: you're not earning too much in this sector. Basically it's maybe one or two hundred € higher than unemployment money. The people rather say "I don't work for this few additional bucks, I rather take unemployment money and don't work a single hour". Sorry, but they shouldn't get a dime.

Of course we don't want a US system with such a big gap between poor and rich, but real poverty doesn't exist here. The welfare system is good enough to provide everyone with a basic which is enough for living.

[CBranski]

Welfare systems in the US vary by state-some are very generous, others are not. A few states come close to Europe and Canada with the extent of social service programs.

I too find the gap between rich and poor disturbing; and I'll be honest regarding the solution: I don't know what it is.

While it may sound cruel, we have to realize that some people are poor because they're !%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%s-these people should get nothing. Too often, the various welfare systems in the US distribute help based on the ability to play the system, and not on need. This has to stop.

------------------
Tony Soprano for Sherriff!

[The Horseman]

Liberal (yes, I know that it's a broad term, but it's the only one I can think of to describe myself). And can I add Lyndon B. Johnson, at least with his civil rights legislation, to the list of good American Presidents.

[cleoeo]

I'm a Liberal Democrat who thinks the Hippies of the 1960's had it right. The activists and artists and thinkers I mean; not the perpetually drug-addled lazy worthless dolts that used the "freedom" movement to justify a useless existance.

------------------
Bomb Mars Now!