I'm radical center on everything..
leave politics to the biased..

dannym2326 wrote:

Give me a source for that bullshit?

"Yes, Prime Minister"!! it might not be a valid source but it's hilarious!

dannym2326 wrote:

Give me a source for that bullshit?

Don't mind Aleksandr. He's not being serious, he's just taking the mickey, and he has a penchant for the British.

Although, if he was making the point that I was the pot calling the kettle black, then I recognise plenty of flaws in the British system as well.

Isn't FPTP as a whole, corrupt?

Why should the candidate that the majority didn't want, win?

If that was the case then Lincoln wouldn't of been the won to win the Election of 1860, since he wasn't even on ballots in 8 or so states.

Aleksandr wrote:

If that was the case then Lincoln wouldn't of been the won to win the Election of 1860, since he wasn't even on ballots in 8 or so states.

Just because he's considered a good President doesn't justify bad democracy.

i'm conservative in almost all areas.

You're just mad because the British lost and the Union won.

Hi! I'm new here. I was just lurking around the forums. I'm really into politics and all, so I wanted to see what this thread was about. lol, I have to admit, a few posters here scared me with their apparent lack of knowledge of some issues. (realize that this is a completely subjective and nearly baseless claim, I'm only saying this judging by what I've read on this thread so far)

I immediately went to register for an account in order to post, just because I saw this.

If that was the case then Lincoln wouldn't of been the won to win the Election of 1860, since he wasn't even on ballots in 8 or so states.

Just because he's considered a good President doesn't justify bad democracy.

Lincoln won the majority in electoral votes and commanded nearly half of the popular vote. He gained the support of much of the North. In the South, where he was not on the ballot, the people were split amongst two or three other candidates. In short, almost all the North was rooting for one guy (Lincoln), while the South split their votes among three guys whose names I don't remember and am too lazy to look up. I think one of them was Douglas though.

In short, democracy worked here.

You're just mad because the British lost and the Union won.

I'm sure you're just being facetious here, but just because I'm bored and I want to feel smart: the colonies* won

Anyway, this being my first post and all. I hope I didn't come off sounding too much like a pompous, know-it-all jerk. kthnxbai

/end

You forgot that I was speaking of the Civil War when the British allied with the rebel confederates and went to war with the Union, and lost.

Even though Lincoln had the most popular and electoral votes, the guy with the 2nd most popular votes had the 4th most electoral votes.

The British did not ally with the Rebels. When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, it gave the war a moral tone, being against slavery and all. Because of this, Britain did not ally with the South, as they were against slavery.

I think the best the British did was supply the South and build blockade runner ships, which they did for money.

Strictly speaking, I was arguing for democracy. The electoral college system, I do not agree with.

Aleksandr wrote:

You're just mad because the British lost and the Union won.

Yes. :mad:

I had a point though...

I am a fiscal conservative. :cool:

*anticipates flaming*

deleted

Right...

And not to hamper on your parade, but when you say it like that, your not convincing many people.

KarNiVore wrote:

I like you.

I like you too :blush:

I can't see how anyone's a Marxist these days.

He's been proved wrong.

KarNiVore wrote:

Marxism sucks, but Marxists are awesome.

That's kind of like saying the KKK sucks but I know some cool folks in there?

I dunno, whatever.

I am "centre left" but I am more to the direct centre. There is no political party I favour 100%, though I tend to vote for the Liberal party because they are the ones I hate the least.

Let's see my big faults I find in them all:
Greens- arrogant, self absorbed. "We're the saviours of the earth". Anti mining. Anti fishing. Anti nuclear. Pro high taxes for the wealthy. Full of ideas which may seem good, but are completely unfeasible and have no cost vs benefit analysis applied to it. A lot of their policies sit in the "who cares" pile except for those it affects. Don't seem to have anything reputable to say on any matter related to their economy, except that "big polluters should pay moar111!!!!!!" or "tax the rich because they're successful!!!!!!". With just ONE of 150 MPs in the lower house of the federal parliament, and the balance of the power in the senate, they act as if they are the government. NEXT.

Labor- completely off the rails. Care only for power and factional warfare. NSWALP branch is a good example. Labor seems to take what is "popular" in focus groups as their policy, though they like having big whiz projects to work on, most of which are poorly managed and end up being epic failures. Does the Labor party even care for their original purpose, i.e. to look after workers? I think not.

Liberal/Nationals- naysayers on pretty much every issue, almost polar opposites to the Greens. Though they sometimes embark on big big nation building projects, they normally enjoy spending their time cutting costs and racking up nice surpluses (which Labor then spends when they are next in office). Love to screw over the workers (Work Choices!!) and the "little people". After all, they are the xenophobic, homophobic, white Christian people of society.