Democrats target another good American

[Sea Demon]

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2009/02/14/20090214arpaio-probe0214.html

Elections really do matter. Democrats align themselves with lawbreakers against law enforcement. These are the people you Democrats empower. Sick.

[Platapus]

I am afraid I am not following you. What's wrong with an investigation to see if racial profiling is being used in the enforcement of federal laws?

Sounds to me like they are doing what they are supposed to be doing.....conducting an investigation and getting the facts.

Especially since last year the Mayor of Phoenix evidently has the same concerns.

What exactly is the problem you have with this?

[Stealth Hunter]

What exactly is the problem you have with this?

If it involves the Democrats, he automatically has a disagreement with it.:up:

[Sea Demon]

My problem with this stems from the fact that Sheriff Joe is following the law by doing his duty in enforcing the law. And protecting the citizens of his community. While some of his tactics are harsh, I support his commitment to protecting the people of his state and the USA in general. Bottom line, most people who are illegal aliens in his state are Hispanic. I am a person with Hispanic blood myself. And while I don't believe Hispanics should be at the mercy of jack booted/kick down your front door illegal search tactics, It stands to reason that Joe is going to confront many illegal aliens in communities where many Hispanics reside. That said, Joe is not going around kicking in doors, and dragging people out of them. That is simply BS brought forth by left-wing agitators that reside in MALDEF and the ACLU. I live in California, and those of us that chose to vote to protect the state's taxpayers from paying undue and unconstitutional benefits for people illegaly residing in our state were called racists, and all other nonsense by these same agitators. Sorry, but that was not my or most voters intentions. These same groups also have said in no uncertain terms that checking a persons legal status before receiving state benefits would be racial profiling despite the fact that all people of all races would be checked. Utter nonsense driven by left-wing foolishness. But yet, those measures might have helped prevent California from going into economic ruin.

These looney notions brought forth by the illegal aliens and their aiders and abetters is a disgrace. These people who bring these charges that Hispanics are being racially profiled is completely without merit. If you are here legally, and law abiding, then what's the problem? Absolutely none. And Sheriff Joe isn't going to do anything to you. Look, I can certainly understand and be sensitive to the impropriety of being targeted due to race as that's a clear violation of an individual's civil rights. But there is nothing wrong with checking a person's legal right to be there if they end up in jail or demand state benefits...for instance. To me, these people are just going after another person who's determined to protect his community, who's doing his job by enforcing the law, and all because they have failed at the federal level. This case looks to be yet another in a series of politically motivated cases against Americans who want border integrity, sensible immigration, and American sovereignty upheld.

[Sea Demon]

What exactly is the problem you have with this?
If it involves the Democrats, he automatically has a disagreement with it.:up:
Oh, if only the world is as easy as you see it. ;) I wouldn't have a problem with them if they actually did anything that protected American sovereignty, protected economic liberty and private property rights, if they protected taxpayer interests, if they had any sense of what actually grows an economy, if they actually had any understanding of their constitutional limitations, and were not so dangerous on matters of national security. Sorry, they are just truly that bad. I see no benefits to this country if they do most of what they seek to do. Their intentions, whether good or bad, usually lead to damage to whatever they touch. And I intend to call em' on it.

And the case above is just another example of them weakening law enforcement.

[UnderseaLcpl]

If it involves the Democrats, he automatically has a disagreement with it.:up:

It's pronounced; So-shul-ists. Lots of people have a problem with that. :DL

[Zachstar]

I dont get it. If he is innocent the investigation will prove that. Foaming at the mouth wont help.

[Sea Demon]

I dont get it. If he is innocent the investigation will prove that. Foaming at the mouth wont help.

I know you don't get it. That's why you vote the way you do. National security and border security are not any Dem's strong points. The point is, we have seen Dem agitators do this stuff to more than one person over the years. It's always counter to the integrity of borders, common sense, and law enforcement. Every time. This is simply yet another example of agitators of the left taking a cause which weakens law enforcement. It is selective, and targeted against a high profile figure known for law enforcement and protecting citizens of his community and their property against criminal illegal aliens. The results of any investigation will change nothing. Pointing it out causes no foaming of my mouth, it merely causes annoyance by those who worship at the alter of these people. Nothing more.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

http://nickmilne.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/facepalm2sn8.jpg

[Etienne]

Kapitan_Phillips wins this thread.

(EDIT: The rest of this post was not interesting)

[UnderseaLcpl]

I dont get it. If he is innocent the investigation will prove that. Foaming at the mouth wont help.

If that post was a G7a torpedo, fired at 90 AOB, from 400m, it would have missed the mark by about a kilometer.

[A Very Super Market]

Is it too late for a new entry?

............................................______ __........................
....................................,.-¡®¡±...................``~.,..................
.............................,.-¡±...................................¡°-.,............
.........................,/...............................................¡±: ,........
.....................,?........................... ...........................\,.....
.................../.................................................. .........,}....
................./.................................................. ....,:`^`..}....
.............../.................................................. .,:¡±........./.....
..............?.....__............................ .............:`.........../.....
............./__.(.....¡°~-,_..............................,:`........../........
.........../(_....¡±~,_........¡°~,_....................,:`... ....._/...........
..........{.._$;_......¡±=,_.......¡°-,_.......,.-~-,},.~¡±;/....}...........
...........((.....*~_.......¡±=-._......¡°;,,./`..../¡±............../............
...,,,___.\`~,......¡°~.,....................`.... .}............../.............
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-¡±...............
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\...................
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__...........
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|........... ...`=~-,....
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\... .....................
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\............. ..........
................................`:,,.............. .............`\..............__..
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``.......
........................................_\........ ..._,-%.......`\...............
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\..............

[Stealth Hunter]

http://nickmilne.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/facepalm2sn8.jpg

I'm right behind 'ya KP:

http://codebloo.net/stuff/picard-headesk.jpg

[Stealth Hunter]

If it involves the Democrats, he automatically has a disagreement with it.:up:

It's pronounced; So-shul-ists. Lots of people have a problem with that. :DL

Wait- first they were Communists, then Fascists, then Marxists, THEN Socialists...

Which is it?

[mookiemookie]

The same Joe Arpaio who abuses his office to harrass or arrest people who are critical of him? Yeah, real great American there. :roll:

[Platapus]

What exactly is the problem you have with this?

If it involves the Democrats, he automatically has a disagreement with it.:up:

<smacking head> Ah. Forgot what website I was on for a moment. Thanks for setting my straight on this. :D

[Enigma]

:har:

[Zachstar]

I dont get it. If he is innocent the investigation will prove that. Foaming at the mouth wont help.
I know you don't get it. That's why you vote the way you do. National security and border security are not any Dem's strong points. The point is, we have seen Dem agitators do this stuff to more than one person over the years. It's always counter to the integrity of borders, common sense, and law enforcement. Every time. This is simply yet another example of agitators of the left taking a cause which weakens law enforcement. It is selective, and targeted against a high profile figure known for law enforcement and protecting citizens of his community and their property against criminal illegal aliens. The results of any investigation will change nothing. Pointing it out causes no foaming of my mouth, it merely causes annoyance by those who worship at the alter of these people. Nothing more.


Is this that "They are the ones on the wall" stuff again?

[UnderseaLcpl]

If it involves the Democrats, he automatically has a disagreement with it.:up:

It's pronounced; So-shul-ists. Lots of people have a problem with that. :DL

Wait- first they were Communists, then Fascists, then Marxists, THEN Socialists...

Which is it?

They come in all those flavors, and others. And all of those flavors are lumped into a single, convenient category (centralists) that can be readily identified by their willingness to surrender the freedoms of others to pursue their own ideals or welfare, or get something for "free"
They can often be readily identified by their complete disregard for empyrical evidence and willingness to believe hopelessly optimistic versions of history that support their beliefs, if they know anything about it at all.
The most dangerous types are the "Academic Centralist" and the "Idiot Centralist"
The academic centralist has a vast arsenal of university schooling that makes him feel superior. He can be identified by his complete lack of touch with reality in almost every sense of the word. Statements common to an Academic Centralist would include things like "we should all drive electric cars" or "The (<variable> industry) needs more regulation"
Obviously these people have yet to experience enough of real life to realize that they are supporting a monopoly with legislative power, which is infinitely more dangerous than an industry monopoly, assuming that the state has very limited power. They don't even know that they are supporters of Plutocracy, in many cases. And if they do know it, they are even more dangerous.

The "Idiot Centralist" is just some peon who actually believes that some of other peoples money can, and should, be given to him. In addition to the failings of the Academic Socialist, his complete and utter lack of understanding beyond what is spoon-fed to him by mass media is appalling. This type can be easily identified by their complete failure to responsibly plan their lives and constant demand for compensation. They are weak, individually, but in great, great, numbers they can pose a real threat, because some of them actually vote, and many more of them are very vocal about their opinions, though they can rarely be bothered to do anything about it.

One last category I will mention is the "Compassionate Centralist". Not as dangerous as the aforementioned, but still a threat to personal liberty. These people believe that ignorance, suffering, and death exsist in the world because those of us that don't live in disease and famine-ridden hellholes are either unaware of these events or don't care. In many cases, they honestly believe that they and like-minded indiviuals are the only ones who know about and are fighting for their cause.
Reasoning and logic bounce off them like Nerf arrows. They have either never heard of the term "incentive" or simply do not understand it. They think that economics is a zero-sum game and that the world's limited wealth should be divided more equally. They often contribute to charitable efforts, which they should be commended for, but they also seek to lobby legislation that forces others to give as well. A surefire test is to tell the suspected individual that foreign aid to impoverished African countries creates more problems than it solves, because it exacerbates the population crisis there. If they start blabbing about humanitarian efforts or "the children", you've got yourself a Compassionate Centralist.

Centralists come in many more types than just these, of course, but collectively, they can be generally identified by their belief that they know what is best for others.

On the flip-side, individualists (catch-all term, again) take responsibility for themselves, and encourage others to do the same, even if it is to that person's detriment. Individualists are often charitable, because they tend to do well. They have personal initiative and refuse to be "victimized". They can be identified by their attempts to get a solid grip on their own affairs, and their lack of whining about being treated unfairly.
Of course, they can be dangerous as well, especially if given excessive legislative power, as they tend to take advantage of it.

Any type of person is liable to take advantage of power if it is given to them. Monopolistic power is the most dangerous. There is a reason that the saying "Power Corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." has endured.
What we need is a government that is strictly regulated by harsh Constitutional authority, enforced by an armed populace that is very protective of their freedoms. We had a system like that once, but the Federalists crushed it in the Civil War.
Perhaps it is time to reassert the authority of the American people.

[Biggles]

Can't we just all hug and be friends?


And stop these claims that socialism is a bad thing...

[Aramike]

Does anyone else notice that the left seems to always whine about being called socialists but never try to defend that they are not?

[Biggles]

I am pretty much a socialist, I have no problem saying that. But people in the U.S seems to think it's the same as communism, and well...

Besides, I think it's rather silly if you have to defend yourself from being something you aren't all the time....

[UnderseaLcpl]

I am pretty much a socialist, I have no problem saying that. But people in the U.S seems to think it's the same as communism, and well...


Considering that every "communist" regime has actually been a "transitional" socialist state, they're kind of right but I see what you mean. There are differing degrees of socialism.

I have absolutely no problem with you being a socialist. I don't even have a problem with Americans being socialists, as long as Constitutional law prevents them from making us into a socialist state. To each his own.

You'll have to forgive some of us from lumping you in with all kinds of other socialist ideologies. It is kind of a cultural thing over here. The memory of the Cold War has not yet faded, and many here were raised in the era of the evil Soviet Empire.

Calling oneself any kind of socialist is a political no-no in the U.S. There is a strong belief that socialism is a "slippery slope" on the conservative side, and even amongst some moderates. Liberals don't like being called socialists, either. They style themselves as "progressives" instead. In a nation that was founded upon the ideals of liberty and personal freedom, claiming that you are an adherent of a doctrine that cedes so much power to the state is not a good idea, even though many of us are exactly that.

Kind of odd, no?

[Biggles]

I guess it all comes down to the society in which you're raised in. I live in Sweden, done that all my life, and I have no real desire to leave. Sweden is typically a socialistic democracy, most elections ends up in a west-wing victory, although the right wingers won last one (Sep. 2006). I wouldn't say that our democratic system is flawless, but I do find some points rather good. Two things makes the big difference between U.S politics and Swedish if you ask me: Taxes and healthcare. Our taxes are amongst the highest in the world (think Denmark is the only country ahead of us there). On the other hand,this results in a near-free healthcare system. Basically, the policy is that everyone should have the right to a proper healthcare. I see no problem here, so I'm willing to accept the high taxes.

We have more political parties within the government than you americans. It's working fine, so I don't see why not.

One thing I find interesting is how people (everywhere really) has decided to stay to one political group no matter what. I get the strong feeling that alot of american republicans wote republican because their family has always done that, and the same goes for the democrats ofcourse. This can be seen in all countries ofcourse, but I think it's quite usual in the U.S. Now, I've never been old enough to vote, but now I am, and will (most likely) vote the next election (Sep. 2010). I stated earlier that I was "pretty much" a socialist. Well, that's how I feel now, but unlike many in my age, I refuse to pick a side completely until the day of the voting. Even then, I might not be sure what to do. When it comes to matters of such importance as politics, you shouldn't make hasty conclusions.

I usually don't poke my nose in other countries affairs, but when it comes to the U.S, I feel that I have to stay tuned, considering how much power your single nation has.

[Morts]

Two things makes the big difference between U.S politics and Swedish if you ask me: Taxes and healthcare. Our taxes are amongst the highest in the world (think Denmark is the only country ahead of us there). On the other hand,this results in a near-free healthcare system. Basically, the policy is that everyone should have the right to a proper healthcare. I see no problem here, so I'm willing to accept the high taxes.

dont forget that going to school, highscool or college is also free (in a few rare cases it does cost)

[UnderseaLcpl]

I guess it all comes down to the society in which you're raised in. I live in Sweden, done that all my life, and I have no real desire to leave. Sweden is typically a socialistic democracy, most elections ends up in a west-wing victory, although the right wingers won last one (Sep. 2006). I wouldn't say that our democratic system is flawless, but I do find some points rather good. Two things makes the big difference between U.S politics and Swedish if you ask me: Taxes and healthcare. Our taxes are amongst the highest in the world (think Denmark is the only country ahead of us there). On the other hand,this results in a near-free healthcare system.
If that's your cup of tea, go for it:up: There is a lot of debate about the effectiveness of the U.S. healthcare system and a lot of people want to nationalize it, but you're absolutely right that the society you are raised in makes a difference. There is still something of a national consciousness of "Can-Do American attitude" and being "the land of opportunity". There's a mentality that one should take care of oneself and advance from their own work, merits, and efforts.
Personally, I'm not ready to pay higher taxes for a national healthcare system here for two reasons. 1) The taxes I pay already are outrageous. and 2) Our government can't even manage to run the things it is running now very efficiently. The last thing we need is a healthcare system with service like you would find at the post office or social security office or DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles)

Basically, the policy is that everyone should have the right to a proper healthcare. I see no problem here, so I'm willing to accept the high taxes.
That's completely reasonable, but what constitutes "proper" healthcare in Sweden? Here, doctors are required to stabilize patients even if they cannot pay, and many hospitals are very accomodating when it comes to payment plans. To me, that's free and proper healthcare. To you, maybe not.
However, I wouldn't use legislative authority to force other people to pay for my healthcare. I'd get off my sorry butt and get to work to pay off my bills. Some people here don't do that, they just want a free ride. American social perspective thing again, I guess.

We have more political parties within the government than you americans. It's working fine, so I don't see why not.
And I applaud that. I wish we had more ploitical parties. We have a winner-takes-all system though, so lots of people end up voting for "the lesser of two evils"
You've got us beat in that field.

One thing I find interesting is how people (everywhere really) has decided to stay to one political group no matter what. I get the strong feeling that alot of american republicans wote republican because their family has always done that, and the same goes for the democrats ofcourse. This can be seen in all countries ofcourse, but I think it's quite usual in the U.S. Now, I've never been old enough to vote, but now I am, and will (most likely) vote the next election (Sep. 2010). I stated earlier that I was "pretty much" a socialist. Well, that's how I feel now, but unlike many in my age, I refuse to pick a side completely until the day of the voting. Even then, I might not be sure what to do. When it comes to matters of such importance as politics, you shouldn't make hasty conclusions.

That's smart. And you are correct that people tend to vote the way their parents do. There's a term for it, but I forgot what it was.
Americans sometimes don't give a lot of thought to their vote, if they vote at all, because they don't like the people and parties they are voting for. We've only really got two parties, which are increasingly becoming two sides of the same party. I guess some people think, "why bother".
I vote in every election I can, local, state, and federal. I always throw my vote away by voting Libertarian, but the right to vote and the chance to show support for my party is worth it to me.

I usually don't poke my nose in other countries affairs, but when it comes to the U.S, I feel that I have to stay tuned, considering how much power your single nation has.

That's a wise thing to do. But consider for a moment what the U.S. used to be like.
We were an isolationist country, even managing to keep our noses out of two world wars for a good time. Americans listened to the advice of our founders and stayed out of foreign affairs as much as possible. But as our nation has moved farther and farther towards socialism, our intervention has expanded exponentially. Always with good intentions, but still interventionist.
So would you rather see U.S. power in the hands of a socialist government, one that can act as it chooses, or would you rather see it in the hands of the states and people, where it takes a lot of inertia to mobilize them?

[UnderseaLcpl]

Two things makes the big difference between U.S politics and Swedish if you ask me: Taxes and healthcare. Our taxes are amongst the highest in the world (think Denmark is the only country ahead of us there). On the other hand,this results in a near-free healthcare system. Basically, the policy is that everyone should have the right to a proper healthcare. I see no problem here, so I'm willing to accept the high taxes.

dont forget that going to school, highscool or college is also free (in a few rare cases it does cost)

And don't forget that in Denmark, youur parents can choose which school you go to, which is why your education system is better than ours.
Here, you're stuck with a school based on where you live, so there is no incentive for the school or the teachers to perform better.
Despite being a socialist country, Denmark is less socialist than the U.S. when it comes to education.

[Biggles]

UnderseaLcpl, that was a great post, really, it's so nice to read something of that quality!:yeah:

Yes, I don't know how I could forget that part about schools in Sweden. Just to summon it up: Here you can search to any highschool you want (some restrictions depending on distance). The limit to where you can get in is not based upon the size of your wallet, but rather the size of your brain. To put it more properly: The better grades, the better school. Same goes for university ofcourse.

I find this particular system great, since it means that people are educated amongst others that share their aprox. abilities. Some schools are better than others ofcourse.

But I wouldn't say that I'd like to see the U.S try this, yet, because you just can't change things overnight. You can keep your political system, it's really none of my business. But it might be good to know that other democratic countries work well using socialism. It doesn't always lead to communism. The people of Sweden has alot to say about when it comes to politics. It was a public vote about changing the currency from Krona to Euro, and the (majority of the) swedish people said no, and we still have our old currency.

I would just like to throw in my biggest irritation of the political system of the U.S: The ability for a man/woman to become president even if the majority of the american people voted for "the other guy"...

Might as well add that Sweden hasn't been in a war (officially) since 1814. We gave Norway it's independence 1905, without bloodshed. The swedish government has the people's security as a top priority during crisis, as any good gov. should have. (And have).

[UnderseaLcpl]

UnderseaLcpl, that was a great post, really, it's so nice to read something of that quality!:yeah:
Thanks. It's nice to have a civilized discussion with someone who has different views. I rarely enjoy that privilege.:up:


Yes, I don't know how I could forget that part about schools in Sweden. Just to sum it up: Here you can search to any highschool you want (some restrictions depending on distance). The limit to where you can get in is not based upon the size of your wallet, but rather the size of your brain. To put it more properly: The better grades, the better school. Same goes for university ofcourse.

I find this particular system great, since it means that people are educated amongst others that share their aprox. abilities. Some schools are better than others ofcourse.

I doubt that would go over well in the U.S. It would probably be seen as discriminatory. As for me, I wouldn't support such a system here because I wouldn't trust the state to adequately determine who is intelligent. There are a lot of very successful people who did very well despite being poor performers at school, and I don't see the harm in letting individuals choose their own school. If a particular school is too difficult for them, they can choose another and vice-versa.
That should cause students to clump into groups of "similar intelligence" all by itself
without resorting to state interference and the costs associated with it.


But I wouldn't say that I'd like to see the U.S try this, yet, because you just can't change things overnight. You can keep your political system, it's really none of my business. But it might be good to know that other democratic countries work well using socialism. It doesn't always lead to communism. The people of Sweden has alot to say about when it comes to politics. It was a public vote about changing the currency from Krona to Euro, and the (majority of the) swedish people said no, and we still have our old currency.

The people of Sweden are also a more culturally homogenous group. Socialism may work better for them. Also consider that while Sweden may be socialist, economically it is a free-market economy. Number 26 in the in the index of economic freedom, in fact, as of this year. http://www.heritage.org/Index/Ranking.aspx
In terms of GNP per capita Sweden has hovered around the top ten for years now
http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/infopays/rank/PNBH2.html
Imo, because of that economic freedom.

What we face in the U.S. today is not only the erosion of our civil liberties, but the destruction of our free-market system. The government is nationalizing companies and overstepping constitutional authority. If only our civil liberties were in jepoardy, we could still be prosperous, but once the state begins to regulate the economy, they doom us to failure as a nation.

Consider, China, one of the world's emerging powers, with its' vast production power and population. Did you know that China was on the verge of economic collapse until they implemented the policy of "Special Economic Zones" where the state relinquished much of its' centralist authority over the economy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Economic_Zones_of_the_People%27s_Republic_ of_China (sorry for the wiki source, I'm lazy and it is easier to read, and find, than some other sources)
Now China is a world power. The SEZs are very prosperous, but the rest of China remains poor. People actually manage to starve to death there.
Even with their communist philosophy, China prospers because of free trade.

As you stated, Swedish citizens are also more politically active. That's a result of not having a winner-takes-all system, as I mentioned before. Even though Sweden is socialist, the parties have a lot more competition, and so must perform better if they wish to remain in power. In that respect, ironically, Sweden is also less socialist than the U.S.


I would just like to throw in my biggest irritation of the political system of the U.S: The ability for a man/woman to become president even if the majority of the american people voted for "the other guy"...
That's a by-product of the winner-takes-all system. The electoral college is the only practical way we have found to represent the populace in presidential elections in that system.
We are in total agreement on this point. You have no idea how frustrating it is to be a member of a party that has to go to extraordinary lengths just to get on the ballot, let alone win an election. I really wish we would change that stupid winner-takes-all system to a direct representation system.


Might as well add that Sweden hasn't been in a war (officially) since 1814. We gave Norway it's independence 1905, without bloodshed. The swedish government has the people's security as a top priority during crisis, as any good gov. should have. (And have).


And the U.S. used to be like that, but that all changed as the leftists pushed their agenda further. I'd love nothing more than to see the U.S. follow Thomas Jefferson's advice; "Free trade with all nations, alliances with none" It would keep us out of wars and make us a much more benign superpower.


I feel that we can agree on a lot of points. Obviously, Sweden has a superior party system to that of the U.S. One that forces parties to compete. I think that's a good thing, and you like your system so I can only assume that you agree.

Sweden has a good degree of economic freedom as well. Not as much as it could if the taxes weren't so high, but quite a bit, nonetheless. Once again, I can only assume that you are happy with that.

When it comes to civil liberties and the power bestowed upon the state, we will probably disagree. I'm simply not willing to give up my freedoms, or the power to determine those freedoms, to the state, for whatever purpose. The founders intended that this should be so, and even gave me the right to own a firearm to enforce those rights if need be.
The United States has always been about individual freedom, since it declared independence. That is what made this country great. The promise of opportunity and self-determination. Freedom to choose and make decisions based upon your own initiative, and not that of a disinterested state.
Those ideals have been under siege for a long time now, and the defences have been breached on many occassions. Should they fall, the world will face a new Soviet Union. Maybe not a communist one, but a heavy-handed interventionist state that seeks to dominate other nations' destinies.
And it has already begun. There's hardly a place in the world now where the U.S. does not exert heavy (and sometimes military) influence.

Socialism may be okay for Sweden, but in the hands of a superpower like the U.S. it is a dangerous weapon.
"When you see contention amongst your enemies, go and sit at ease with your friends; but when you see them of one mind, string your bow, and place stones upon the ramparts."-Saadi
The last thing that the world(and the U.S.) needs right now is a U.S. that is of one mind.

[Biggles]

The last thing that the world(and the U.S.) needs right now is a U.S. that is of one mind.

Interesting way to put it. I agree fully, we do not want "one mind" to rule the United States. But that's not the case over here, I'm sure you understand that:salute:

One other difference when it comes to our countries would be the election of government. As far as I know, the two parties choose one man/woman to become the leader of the country, and then they compete for the post as the president. Sometimes I can't really understand: are you voting for the man, or the party? The american press can really make things confusing sometimes...this is ofcourse nothing that the gov. can handle:)

With swedish elections, as far as I'm concerned, it's all about the party. Nowadays we have two "alliances" between the west-parties and the right-parties. There are more efforts made to make the party look good than it's leader. The interesting thing here is that there aren't any clear candidates to become the head of the gov. (Prime minister). The winning party (parties) decide that, although, the last election it was pretty clear which man that they would elect (Fredrik Reinfeldt).

I could go on forever, but one thing I want everyone to understand: Sweden is as democratic as any country can be. When it comes to gender equality, we're at the top. That's just one example. We may be socialistic in our core, but we do not defy democracy.

Also interesting fact: The city Södertälje, south of Stockholm, grants more legal immigrants every year than the entire United States. The town has a population of aprox. 60 000. Area: 25.29 km2 :D

(That's legal immigrants, mind you):03:

[UnderseaLcpl]

[quote=UnderseaLcpl]
The last thing that the world(and the U.S.) needs right now is a U.S. that is of one mind.


Interesting way to put it. I agree fully, we do not want "one mind" to rule the United States. But that's not the case over here, I'm sure you understand that:salute:


Yes, I understand that. I said that Sweden is less socialist than the U.S. in terms of their party system. That is not entirely accurate. I should have said "less centralist". You'll have to forgive me for occassionally using the terms "socialist" and "centralist" interchangeably. It's a culture thing.
However, the U.S. is going down the road to a very centralist system. An oligarchy, of sorts.

One other difference when it comes to our countries would be the election of government. As far as I know, the two parties choose one man/woman to become the leader of the country, and then they compete for the post as the president. Sometimes I can't really understand: are you voting for the man, or the party? The american press can really make things confusing sometimes...this is ofcourse nothing that the gov. can handle:)

It is confusing. The two major parties hold primary elections that determine who will become their candidate. Once those candidates are chosen, they compete against each other.
Conservative voters generally vote Republican. Liberal voters generally vote Democrat. "Swing" voters have no clear party affiliation, and make up a big block of the voting populace. Sometimes they vote for the candidate of their choice based on party affiliation, and sometimes they vote based on their personal views of the candidate.
The debates and campaign ads are designed to target these "swing" voters. Party voters usually have their minds made up already. They subscribe to a party philosophy, and even if their party's candidate is not their preferred candidate, they will usually vote for him anyway.
So, to put it as simply as possible, The parties select their own candidates by voting for "the man". In the general (real) election, people are still technically voting for "the man". It is possible, for instance, to vote to elect a Democratic President and a Republican Senator or Representative. However, there are a lot of people who vote what is called a "straight-party ticket". That is, they vote for their party's candidates no matter what.

Does that answer your question?




With swedish elections, as far as I'm concerned, it's all about the party. Nowadays we have two "alliances" between the west-parties and the right-parties. There are more efforts made to make the party look good than it's leader. The interesting thing here is that there aren't any clear candidates to become the head of the gov. (Prime minister). The winning party (parties) decide that, although, the last election it was pretty clear which man that they would elect (Fredrik Reinfeldt).
That's fine with me, as long as those alliances don't eventually merge into parties of their own. Then you'll have a two-party system, like we do, and you'll be on the road to a centralist government.


I could go on forever, but one thing I want everyone to understand: Sweden is as democratic as any country can be. When it comes to gender equality, we're at the top. That's just one example. We may be socialistic in our core, but we do not defy democracy.

Also interesting fact: The city Södertälje, south of Stockholm, grants more legal immigrants every year than the entire United States. The town has a population of aprox. 60 000. Area: 25.29 km2 :D

(That's legal immigrants, mind you):03:


Those are interesting points. Bear in mind, though, that the U.S. is not a democracy, in the purest sense of the word. It was intentionally designed as a representative democracy governed by constitutional limitations on federal powers to prevent what is called "tyranny of the masses". A good example of this concept is present-day Iraq, where the Shiites form the majority and have incurred the wrath of the Sunni minority, resulting in civil disocrd.

As far as legal immmigration goes, I don't doubt your findings. Immmigration protocols in the U.S. are very strict. However, millions of illegal immigrants have been pouring into the country for many years(not so much now, since the economy is suffering) Many of them were eventually granted citizenship.
Democratic leftists have championed these illegal immigrants for years, and I think it is just a ploy to garner votes. They know that most illegal immigrants are poorly educated, which means they will not question what they are told or be politically active. In addition, they are more likely to rely on Democratic social programs. On the other hand, legal immigrants from places like Europe and Asia have great difficulty immmigrating to this country. My own stepmother is a Ukranian nuclear technician, and she has been here for six years without being granted citizenship.
Coincidentally, the Democratic party has been the foremost supporter of strict immigration regulations, except when it comes to illegal immigration. Perhaps they fear an influx of educated immigrants? Or perhaps I am just paranoid? Either way, I would favor equal immigration requirements for everyone.

Your thoughts?

[Neptunus Rex]

I am afraid I am not following you. What's wrong with an investigation to see if racial profiling is being used in the enforcement of federal laws?

Sounds to me like they are doing what they are supposed to be doing.....conducting an investigation and getting the facts.

Especially since last year the Mayor of Phoenix evidently has the same concerns.

What exactly is the problem you have with this?

Read the article. The Senators are calling for an investigation. There are no actual complaints against the guy or his deputies. If there are no complaints, then it's political motivation.

Gee, could it be media reports?

[Platapus]

Read the article. The Senators are calling for an investigation. There are no actual complaints against the guy or his deputies. If there are no complaints, then it's political motivation.

Perhaps I missed something in reading that article?

Four leading Democratic members of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee on Friday asked the new attorney general and Homeland Security secretary to investigate civil-rights complaints stemming from Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's crackdowns on illegal immigration.

The four lawmakers called on Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to investigate complaints that deputies used skin color as the basis to search for illegal immigrants.

Am I mis-reading the word complaint in the article?

I don't know if Arpaio is a good guy or a bad guy. A fair and open investigation should give us the answer.

[Tribesman]

So there have been several complaints , including one by a member of the mayors staff who claims he was pulled just because of the colour of his skin .

[August]

Everything I've read about this guy says he's a borderline nutcase. He may not be the poster boy for Democrat abuse as the Republicans might hope he is.

Didn't his deputies recently set somebody's house on fire then kept throwing the families dog back into the burning building every time the poor animal tried to escape?

[Zachstar]

Well that is for the investigation to decide but if that is the case I will happly put mr "Good American" Sea Demon on ignore.

BTW just FYI.. Hannity sucks.. If you want a good nutjob quote go with "Drive by media" by Limbaugh.

[Fish]

I am pretty much a socialist, I

I am a liberal. :smug:

[Stealth Hunter]

I am pretty much a socialist, I

I am a liberal. :smug:

I'm a Liberal and a Social-Democrat.

[August]

I'm just an American. :salute:

[baggygreen]

And I'm a blind AFL umpire!:D

[August]

And I'm a blind AFL umpire!:D

Australian Figjam Larrikin?

[baggygreen]

And I'm a blind AFL umpire!:D

Australian Figjam Larrikin?:rotfl:
Almost.

australian football league. Sport of the gods.

Hit youtube, and search for greatest knocks, and for greatest goals. thrilling viewing, even for you northerners. Don't have to know the rules to appreciate some of the stuff that goes on!

[Zachstar]

I am pretty much a socialist, I
I am a liberal. :smug:

I'm a progressive which is right of liberal.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I'm an Alcoholic.

:haha:

[A Very Super Market]

Where exactly do Vulcans stand on the political spectrum?

[UnderseaLcpl]

I am a liberal. :smug:

What kind of liberal?





I'm a Liberal and a Social-Democrat.


Tell me what you believe, and I'll bet that you prove yourself to be a centralist:DL

[Aramike]

I am pretty much a socialist, I
I am a liberal. :smug:

I'm a progressive which is right of liberal.LOL!!! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

"Progressive" is nothing more than a code name for liberals who don't like the term "liberal".

The very fact that the term exists implies an inherent deception involved with liberalism...

[Zachstar]

Then they are liberal progressives (Which I guess is left of progressive and right of liberal whatever that means)

Progressivism (accepting progress without running for social programs at every turn) wrecked the GOP's 2008 chances and is decimating its 2010 chances. Because America has grown from the old days where "If you are not right you are a commie!" And thankfully away (Slightly) from loon deep left ideas.

A deep liberal will say "Shut down all nuc plants NOW!"

A progressive will say "Fund fusion research so we can economically kill fission plants!"

The faster the right learns of this and supports its own form of progressivism the faster it can come back if it all.

[Enigma]

"Progressive" is nothing more than a code name for liberals who don't like the term "liberal".

The very fact that the term exists implies an inherent deception involved with liberalism...

I'm not sure I've ever heard such horse **** in my life....

But, alas, on is not surprised considering the source. :yep:

[Platapus]

From the movie: Casablanca

Major Heinrich Strasser (Conrad Veidt)

What is your nationality?


Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart)

I'm a drunkard.

Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains)

That makes Rick a citizen of the world.
:yeah:

[UnderseaLcpl]

Then they are liberal progressives (Which I guess is left of progressive and right of liberal whatever that means)

Progressivism (accepting progress without running for social programs at every turn) wrecked the GOP's 2008 chances and is decimating its 2010 chances. Because America has grown from the old days where "If you are not right you are a commie!" And thankfully away (Slightly) from loon deep left ideas.

A deep liberal will say "Shut down all nuc plants NOW!"

A progressive will say "Fund fusion research so we can economically kill fission plants!"


And then a conservative would say "You're still both just liberals. You may have different ideas on energy policy, but you both imply that the state should control it and worse, you think you're qualified to make those decisions. That makes you liberals, no matter what you call yourselves."

You couldn't have picked a better qay to prove what Aramike said;
"Progressive" is nothing more than a code name for liberals who don't like the term "liberal".

The very fact that the term exists implies an inherent deception involved with liberalism...

:rotfl: "Progressives"...... I love when people tell me that they are progressives or progressive liberals. As opposed to what? That other huge voting block that doesn't want progress?
I think the term itself is hilarious. I guess since liberal policies work so rarely, they had to put the word "progress" in the term so people wouldn't forget what they were all about.
The term is just the hammer and sickle on the red flag of liberalism.

Hey, conservatives, here's a thought; let's start a new political philosophy and call it "good-idea" conservatism. Y'know to distinguish it from regular conservatism.
Our policy will be to only have good ideas:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Tribesman]

As opposed to what? That other huge voting block that doesn't want progress?

Thats the definition of conservative isn't it , the ones that don't want progress , maintaining the staus quo .
Or the real conservatives that want to go backwards with their status quo ante .

I think the term itself is hilarious. I guess since liberal policies work so rarely, they had to put the word "progress" in the term so people wouldn't forget what they were all about.
So you are saying that the American revolution didn't work because the liberal policy of government of the people by the people was a silly idea and the conservative status quo of monarchy would have been better ?
I would love to hear you views on slavery , those damn liberal abolishionists with their silly views on individual rights and equality eh :rotfl:

[Aramike]

I'm not sure I've ever heard such horse **** in my life....Sure you have. Just read any one of your posts full of empty, sheep-like loyalty spurned on by simplistic ad hominem attacks.

[Aramike]

Hey, conservatives, here's a thought; let's start a new political philosophy and call it "good-idea" conservatism. Y'know to distinguish it from regular conservatism.
Our policy will be to only have good ideasGood idea! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Aramike]

So you are saying that the American revolution didn't work because the liberal policy of government of the people by the people was a silly idea and the conservative status quo of monarchy would have been better ?
I would love to hear you views on slavery , those damn liberal abolishionists with their silly views on individual rights and equality eh Why do liberals constantly feel the need to go back 100s of years in order to find an event to fit the literal definition of "liberalism" in order to justify their beliefs?

Dude, modern American liberalism is in NO WAY related to every liberal idea and action throughout history.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Thats the definition of conservative isn't it , the ones that don't want progress , maintaining the staus quo .
Or the real conservatives that want to go backwards with their status quo ante .

Sure, if you relied strictly on a dictionary for your political alignment. Conservatives generally want less government, and more individual freedom. More personal accountability and initiative, less state control. We don't want to go backwards per se, other than reversing a lot of liberal policy. We just don't think that the state knows the best way forward, and judging by the evidence I'd say it doesn't. Or, based on the strict limitations put on the Federal goverment by the constitution, limitations that liberals are always trying to find a way around, I'd say the founders kind of thought the same way.



So you are saying that the American revolution didn't work because the liberal policy of government of the people by the people was a silly idea and the conservative status quo of monarchy would have been better ?
I guess I would be saying that if this was the 18th century.
Of course, in that case I'd probably have a different opinion.



I would love to hear you views on slavery , those damn liberal abolishionists with their silly views on individual rights and equality eh :rotfl:


Ah ah ah...... You don't get to wave the civil rights flag in my face. I'm a Libertarian, things like gay marriage and abortion, et. al don't bother me.
:DL
If this were the mid-1800's, I'd probably be an abolitionist.
Not that it matters, because it is completely irrelevant to the modern context of the terms liberal and conservative in America. If you want an accurate term that can be used at any time period to describe what is called a liberal today, "Centralist" might work better. Or Socialist. :03:

[Enigma]

Whats with all the extremist righties around here wanting to tell everyone else what their political affiliation is? :har:

Ya'll crack me up....

[August]

Whats with all the extremist righties around here wanting to tell everyone else what their political affiliation is? :har:

Ya'll crack me up....

Yeah everyone is an "extremist righty", except for you "progressives". Is that right?

[Enigma]

Yeah everyone is an "extremist righty", except for you "progressives". Is that right?
Wow, that went right over your head, didn't it....:haha:

I was making a joke there, bub. Easy on up now....

[August]

Yeah everyone is an "extremist righty", except for you "progressives". Is that right?
Wow, that went right over your head, didn't it....:haha:

I was making a joke there, bub. Easy on up now....

You call that a joke? You have absolutely no future in comedy. :yep:

[Sea Demon]

:rotfl: "Progressives"...... I love when people tell me that they are progressives or progressive liberals. As opposed to what? That other huge voting block that doesn't want progress?


Democrat/leftists always put a happy sounding label onto whatever they support or describe themselves to be. The progressive label is actually inappropriate as they continually cling to ideals that centralizes state control at the expense of the individual. It's actually regressive and an old concept.

Anyway, this is way off topic. Still fail to see this as nothing but a politically motivated attack on a local sheriff doing his job.

[Enigma]

You call that a joke? You have absolutely no future in comedy. :yep:

Well, there's something we agree on. :88)

Whoooooshhh.......

[Tribesman]

Dude, modern American liberalism is in NO WAY related to every liberal idea and action throughout history.
Dude the modern American use of the word liberal is very very liberal .
Basicly the way it is used is that any issue an individual of a certain mindset doesn't personally like then they throw in the now meaningless american usage of liberal to condemn it .

[Aramike]

Dude, modern American liberalism is in NO WAY related to every liberal idea and action throughout history.
Dude the modern American use of the word liberal is very very liberal .
Basicly the way it is used is that any issue an individual of a certain mindset doesn't personally like then they throw in the now meaningless american usage of liberal to condemn it .So wait, you're saying that conservatives who disagree with liberal policies actually call them "liberal"?

How insightful! :salute:

[Tribesman]

So wait, you're saying that conservatives who disagree with liberal policies actually call them "liberal"?

No , some people who call themselves conservatives will call anything "liberal" if it dosn't fit with their particular view

[Aramike]

So wait, you're saying that conservatives who disagree with liberal policies actually call them "liberal"?

No , some people who call themselves conservatives will call anything "liberal" if it dosn't fit with their particular viewYou have examples of that or are we simply speaking anecdotally?

Oh, and I'm sure that goes both ways so I'm not sure how its relevant to the discussion we were having...

[vtccgolf]

I'm a Libertarian...I get called a neocon by the Left, and a Liberal by the right. I pretty much only care about one thing. That is what is called "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and what our founding fathers meant in writing the Constitution. I don't care what people do as long as it doesn't hurt others or infringe on someone else's Constitutional rights. You want to smoke a little pot, ok. You want to be gay...knock yourself out. Hey, keep that chimp of yours in the house!

But, whatever you do, you are on your own if you screw it all up. We aren't about bailing out people that dug their own hole. Oh, and taxes tend to really upset some of us, particularly when Congress just raises them to cover their poor ability (that's aimed at both parties) to manage money that we don't have. And, they vote themselves raises while America burns! You can't even make this stuff up!

[Stealth Hunter]

I really don't care about what people think about my politics. They'll think what they want, and I really don't give a s*** since it's not like I'm going to change their opinion willy-nilly.