BNP

Going to war in Iraq just gave the oil companies an excuse to raise gas pricees...

Has this topic turned into a debate about how oil prices rise by a group of people who I doubt have much experience in real economics? That seems silly.

 

 

 

I lean right - not Republican. I find myself being more and more libertarian everyday though.

 

 

 

actually leaning to the right means being conservative (republican). if you dont believe me i can even tell you where it came from :wink: .

 

i find this debate funny from what ive read so far, because people in this discussion are stereotyping the parties and putting them on a stand (because they dont really know enough about politics (or economics like ghost said) anyway)

 

 

 

Haha. Thank you for that. But actually, leaning to the right means being conservative - it does not mean being Republican. Republican is a party and you can have a political persuasion without agreeing with the party. The funny thing is, parties ARE stereotypes and ARE put on a standard. You can go to the GOP's website and they will have straightforward, a list of their ideas, and anything against those is not Republican. That's the point of a party - aligning under similar and very airtight ideals.

 

 

 

And telling me where it came from would hardly prove anything...considering the Republicans leaned to what would be the modern day left until the Nixon / JFK days, and the Republican party was started about 100 years before then.

@hohto: i just want to point out that the united states isnt a democracy, its a constitutional republic. but i understand your point, all the politicians and pretty much everyone calls it a democracy.

Well a republic is a form of democracy.

 

 

 

I mostly agree with democrats most of the time.

 

 

 

I don't think bush did anything wrong until the attack on Iraq. His push with christianity on science is a little troubling.

 

 

 

The evolution of the parties in the U.S is pretty interesting. I would consider myself a federalist more than party that has existed.

 

Why did you take Iran's nukes here? Do you really think they'd build nuclear weapons to bomb USrael (Israel&USA)? No matter what, they aren't that big idiots. They know very well that by doing it, they'd get nuked back to the stone age. Have you forgotten what kind of weapons does Israel have? Yep, nukes. If Iran got theirs too, the chances of Israel using theirs would be minimal.

 

 

 

I think identifying Ahmadinejad as "not a big idiot" is probably a misnomer. I assume you're refering to the same person who called for an investigation into the "Holocaust Myth," refuses to recognize Israel and similarly calls for the destruction of their state, as well as openly threatens not just the US but the international community when they broke IAEA seals and refused inspectors earlier this year. Your last statement is also a gross misconception. Israel has repeatedly stated that they will utilize their first strike capabilities and has, in fact, readied their army for such an event. They view Iran as a direct threat to their sovereignty and would rather "nip it in the bud" lest they be taken out later.

 

 

 

 

I don't think bush did anything wrong until the attack on Iraq. His push with christianity on science is a little troubling.

 

 

 

A little troubling? I think his expansion of administrative searches under the TRAP Acts and likewise trying to block most, if not all, stem cell research is more than a little troubling.

Well a republic is a form of democracy.

 

 

 

That's true at a very surfacy level, but means very little if you're actually studying the structure of the government that is formed.

 

Why did you take Iran's nukes here? Do you really think they'd build nuclear weapons to bomb USrael (Israel&USA)? No matter what, they aren't that big idiots. They know very well that by doing it, they'd get nuked back to the stone age.

 

 

 

 

 

They tied burning american soldiers' bodys to a back of a truck and drove around the city........"back to the stone age"? I think they are still in it...They, the terroists, are nothing but cavemen with AK47s instead of clubs.

I personally don't like labeling myself as either one. Democrats and republicans seem to be merging into one big party. They're so moderate nowadays (to get more of a constituency) that they're basically the same party now.

 

 

 

I disagree with more "conservative" ideals and agree with more of the "liberal" ideals. I have a good mix of both; economically I'm more conservative, but I am more socially liberal.

 

 

 

Who else would like to see Obama vs. (republican candidate) in 2008? :wink:

The problem with a district-based system like America, you're basically always chosing between the lesser of two evils. If you don't vote for whoever wins your district, your vote will not be reflected in parliament, which pretty much means you're ignored. It also means that none of the political parties would be willing to take any kind of controversial stance, out of fear for losing voters. I'm very grateful that my country has a system where my vote counts no matter where I vote. I honestly can't stand the thought of having to choose between just two parties, especially if neither of those parties really reflects my political view.

I think identifying Ahmadinejad as "not a big idiot" is probably a misnomer. I assume you're refering to the same person who called for an investigation into the "Holocaust Myth," refuses to recognize Israel and similarly calls for the destruction of their state, as well as openly threatens not just the US but the international community when they broke IAEA seals and refused inspectors earlier this year. Your last statement is also a gross misconception. Israel has repeatedly stated that they will utilize their first strike capabilities and has, in fact, readied their army for such an event. They view Iran as a direct threat to their sovereignty and would rather "nip it in the bud" lest they be taken out later.

 

 

 

So basically you're saying it's ok to act like USrael has acted because Iran's populistic president has said something after they've been threatened like this. He doesn't talk about nuking place X because he is going to do it, he talks about it because that's what the folk over there wants to hear. I totally understand why Iranians are more than pissed off, I'd be too if a foreign country threatened my people like Israel has threatened them. If you want to hear more about Israel's crimes, read my posts from http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?t=459 ... sc&start=0

 

 

 

Btw how can you talk so nicely about a country that still has race laws, threatens non-jews like they do, has taken their country with someone else's permission than the real owner's and is one of the only countries that actually could use a nuclear weapon? In this case both sides (USrael&Iran) have done wrong things, but the bigger criminal is USrael.

 

 

 

Oh yea and if IAEA is so important, why isn't USA now threating Brazil too?

 

 

 

 

 

 

If a foreign country had attacked my country, raped women, killed even up to 40,000 people (including many women and children) and caused huge disasters for our standard of living, I'd be probably violent too. Also, if you judged a whole country by a small minority's acts, you should also judge America, Britain, Finland and every other country too. Those men who did that might have been terrorists, they might have been criminals or something, but judging every Iraqian is like judging every single American. Should I call you a killer because your people have killed people? No, I shouldn't and I won't do it.

 

 

 

Anyways if we start talking about war crimes, then how about...

 

 

 

http://www.mykeru.com/bodycount.html

 

- "In other words, four of ten civilians killed are children. "

 

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... xnews.html

 

- a unit of marines killed 24 civilians, among them women and children

 

 

 

http://www.albasrah.net/warcrimes.htm

 

 

 

Did we forget how americans and britts humiliated people at Guantanamo?

I personally don't like labeling myself as either one. Democrats and republicans seem to be merging into one big party. They're so moderate nowadays (to get more of a constituency) that they're basically the same party now.

 

 

 

I disagree with more "conservative" ideals and agree with more of the "liberal" ideals. I have a good mix of both; economically I'm more conservative, but I am more socially liberal.

 

 

 

Who else would like to see Obama vs. (republican candidate) in 2008? :wink:

 

 

 

Bahh no! Obama will be way too young (politically wise) in 08. Give him a few more years and let's see what happens. Put McCain in there for 08! :P

 

So basically you're saying it's ok to act like USrael has acted because Iran's populistic president has said something after they've been threatened like this. He doesn't talk about nuking place X because he is going to do it, he talks about it because that's what the folk over there wants to hear. I totally understand why Iranians are more than pissed off, I'd be too if a foreign country threatened my people like Israel has threatened them. If you want to hear more about Israel's crimes, read my posts from http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?t=459 ... sc&start=0

 

 

 

 

Yes. I think it is fine for any country to be worried when a leader declares they're willing to use nuclear weapons. President Bush authorizing pre-emptive nuclear strikes to take our Iran's facilities (irony, anyone?) is equally worrying as Israel declaring they will use first strike, and that's just as worrying as Ahmadinejad's nuclear position.

 

 

 

Since when is he going to be responsible to his constituency and talk a big game? The same person who has been seriously accused of election and voter fraud? Please. Even if he was just talking because "that's what folks want to hear," that doesn't make it any less worrying.

 

 

 

 

Btw how can you talk so nicely about a country that still has race laws, threatens non-jews like they do, has taken their country with someone else's permission than the real owner's and is one of the only countries that actually could use a nuclear weapon? In this case both sides (USrael&Iran) have done wrong things, but the bigger criminal is USrael.

 

 

I'm not going to get into a debate over the actual sovereignty of Israel and the nuances of whether or not the Jews leaving the country constitutes an abandonment. It's not just Islam that has a claim on the land, though.

 

 

 

 

Oh yea and if IAEA is so important, why isn't USA now threating Brazil too?

 

 

Because

 

1. Brazil's reactors at Angra dos Reis are at a very low production level right now.

 

2. Regionally, Brazil has been one of the most stable countries and is increasingly involved in free trade agreements, dialogue and consultation within international organizations and individual countries.

 

 

 

I think your final comment was directed at someone else, because nowhere in my post did I judge the individual people of Iraq. It's widely accepted that our human rights record and our soft-power is deteriorating because of things like Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, and other search and detain policies.

I happen to be a Democrat...What Bush has done to the U.S. is sickening... (gas prices....)

 

 

 

Gas prices are controled by oil companies and other countries, the government has nearly no control over industry. I believe a considerable portion of America's oil comes from other countries like Saudi Arabia, we have absolutily no control over this.

 

 

Actully it does. Sending an army to some country. Inspecting the ships that go through, constant attacks. Companies need more protection, buy more protection, higher prices.

 

 

 

Okay, this is just patently false. Oil prices rise when the members of OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries is made up of Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela -- Wikipedia) decide to slow the "faucet" to a trickle.

 

 

 

In the 1970s, the Arab oil embargo caused the same problems that have been caused today, except on a much larger scale. Basically, whenever a U.S. upsets the Arab countries, OPEC increases the price of oil, which in turn leads to astronomical gas prices. To make matters worse, Big Oil plays on people's fears and raises gas prices even more.