tony_montana
Semper Fidelis
Um...scuse me for asking, but...what do hurricanes have to do with politics?
Do you take in interest in your countries politics?
- Thread starter admin
- Start date
Wildcat
Retired Moderator
We were discussing global warming (which is political in some ways), which lead to comments about the increase of hurricanes in recent years presumably due to global warming, which lead to...this. So now we might discuss whether or not the government should continue to build and rebuild homes in areas that are high risk for natural disaster.
So now we might discuss whether or not the government should continue to build and rebuild homes in areas that are high risk for natural disaster. Deweyrules!
Cynic
Wildcat said:Ok, back to the hurricanes now
I feel it's like the global warming argument, primarily it relates to the cyclic nature of our atmosphere and climatic climax variations. However, there has been an overall increase in see temperatures, partcuarly around the Florida gulf area, with this increase in sea temperatures comes prolonged heating, greater evaportation, in turn releasing a greater amount of latent heat, fueling the storm further.
With reference to the point, should we continue to build in these at risk areas; it links back to what has been previously said about population. If we didn't build in areas at risk from hurricanes, volcanoes, earthquakes and other natural hazards, there would be no room for the population we currently have. For example, Los Angeles is a hotbed of numerous hazards, look back to the 1994 Northridge earthquake, and the belief that another earthquake is imminent. Obviously building in areas prone to natural hazards is likely to cause death at some point, however, it is necessary for the population to be maintained.
Deweyrules!
Cynic
This is kind of a continuation from the LGBT MITM FANS thread (I'm slowly learning to try and stay relevant to a thread ) I thought we could return to 'hardcore' politics disucssions LOL. Which of the ideologies are you most allied to? I do my final exams in politics next week, so I guess this acts as a form of revision for me too .
The majority of the Western world basis itself in liberalism and its varying forms (I not going into them all, becuase most of you already seem to know and I could right about 7 pages of explanation, which would probably be BORING). However, a more extreme version of the so called modern liberalism, is socialism. Many people of our age seem to upheld and idealistic, utopian belief in socialims, whereby everyone is equal. I personally disagree with this, I agree in the concept of equality of opportunity, i.e. everyone is given the same rights. However, I vehermently protest the concept of equality of opportunity, i.e. everyone is equal- those who earn more money should be taxed higher to ensure all people have the same.
I hold a firm belief that a country should operate a meritocracy, those who work hard get duly rewarded, therefore there is no real social class; but those who have worked hard get duly rewarded. I know, this too is idealistic, as there is always going to be a difference in financial benefit from a more 'acaedemic' job when compared with a more 'manual' job.
I guess what I'm trying to say, is that people shouldn't get punished for earning more money, they will invariable have worked hard to earn that money. Whereas in Britain (I don't know about other countries) it is often the consensus that these people should receive a high level of taxation to allow those who don't work to maintatin a standard of living. This would be fine if it were those unable to work for specific reasons, medical or phsycological. However, in Britain many people claim they are unable to get jobs and therefore receive benefits every week as well as free housing (often earning more than someone working hard in a crappy job).
This view, I know, is very unfashionable as it may seem eliteist, but I just feel that the current system is unfair. In Britain we have a tax called 'inheritance tax', basically if you die and you have a large amount of savings or a property in your name (perhaps you wish to leave it to your children) you will be taxed by often about 40%! There are even some incidences of taxation reaching 60%.
I know I've not really articulated my point particuarly well, so if you want any clarification just ask (I'm tired). So basically, what are your ideological beliefs- I guess I'm a neo-liberal with conservative tendancies.
) I thought we could return to 'hardcore' politics disucssions LOL. Which of the ideologies are you most allied to? I do my final exams in politics next week, so I guess this acts as a form of revision for me too . The majority of the Western world basis itself in liberalism and its varying forms (I not going into them all, becuase most of you already seem to know and I could right about 7 pages of explanation, which would probably be BORING). However, a more extreme version of the so called modern liberalism, is socialism. Many people of our age seem to upheld and idealistic, utopian belief in socialims, whereby everyone is equal. I personally disagree with this, I agree in the concept of equality of opportunity, i.e. everyone is given the same rights. However, I vehermently protest the concept of equality of opportunity, i.e. everyone is equal- those who earn more money should be taxed higher to ensure all people have the same.
I hold a firm belief that a country should operate a meritocracy, those who work hard get duly rewarded, therefore there is no real social class; but those who have worked hard get duly rewarded. I know, this too is idealistic, as there is always going to be a difference in financial benefit from a more 'acaedemic' job when compared with a more 'manual' job.
I guess what I'm trying to say, is that people shouldn't get punished for earning more money, they will invariable have worked hard to earn that money. Whereas in Britain (I don't know about other countries) it is often the consensus that these people should receive a high level of taxation to allow those who don't work to maintatin a standard of living. This would be fine if it were those unable to work for specific reasons, medical or phsycological. However, in Britain many people claim they are unable to get jobs and therefore receive benefits every week as well as free housing (often earning more than someone working hard in a crappy job).
This view, I know, is very unfashionable as it may seem eliteist, but I just feel that the current system is unfair. In Britain we have a tax called 'inheritance tax', basically if you die and you have a large amount of savings or a property in your name (perhaps you wish to leave it to your children) you will be taxed by often about 40%! There are even some incidences of taxation reaching 60%.
I know I've not really articulated my point particuarly well, so if you want any clarification just ask (I'm tired). So basically, what are your ideological beliefs- I guess I'm a neo-liberal with conservative tendancies.
Alfista Junior
New member
Deweyrules! said:This is kind of a continuation from the LGBT MITM FANS thread (I'm slowly learning to try and stay relevant to a thread
The majority of the Western world basis itself in liberalism and its varying forms (I not going into them all, becuase most of you already seem to know and I could right about 7 pages of explanation, which would probably be BORING). However, a more extreme version of the so called modern liberalism, is socialism. Many people of our age seem to upheld and idealistic, utopian belief in socialims, whereby everyone is equal. I personally disagree with this, I agree in the concept of equality of opportunity, i.e. everyone is given the same rights. However, I vehermently protest the concept of equality of opportunity, i.e. everyone is equal- those who earn more money should be taxed higher to ensure all people have the same.
I hold a firm belief that a country should operate a meritocracy, those who work hard get duly rewarded, therefore there is no real social class; but those who have worked hard get duly rewarded. I know, this too is idealistic, as there is always going to be a difference in financial benefit from a more 'acaedemic' job when compared with a more 'manual' job.
I guess what I'm trying to say, is that people shouldn't get punished for earning more money, they will invariable have worked hard to earn that money. Whereas in Britain (I don't know about other countries) it is often the consensus that these people should receive a high level of taxation to allow those who don't work to maintatin a standard of living. This would be fine if it were those unable to work for specific reasons, medical or phsycological. However, in Britain many people claim they are unable to get jobs and therefore receive benefits every week as well as free housing (often earning more than someone working hard in a crappy job).
This view, I know, is very unfashionable as it may seem eliteist, but I just feel that the current system is unfair. In Britain we have a tax called 'inheritance tax', basically if you die and you have a large amount of savings or a property in your name (perhaps you wish to leave it to your children) you will be taxed by often about 40%! There are even some incidences of taxation reaching 60%.
I know I've not really articulated my point particuarly well, so if you want any clarification just ask (I'm tired). So basically, what are your ideological beliefs- I guess I'm a neo-liberal with conservative tendancies.
You're my spiritual brother.
Maybe this answer is a little short compared with the lengh of your text. I agree. I don't know what else to say. If you manage to say my name (Aurélien, tough job to say that) properly, I adopt you as my brother... If you want, of course...Deweyrules!
Cynic
LOL, spritual brother. It's nice to meet someone with similar beliefs- or should I say oppinions to myself- however, I'm sure we'll find an area on which we disagree, the CAP for example
NeCoHo
Retired Mod
what to say to not get everyone upset... I'll just post this instead:
http://www.okcupid.com/politics
http://www.okcupid.com/politics
Deweyrules!
Cynic
Technically that test isn't ideological- technically it isn't even correct. It treats liberalism as a contrast to conservatism, when in fact in many ways they are inextricably link. They cannot be treated solely as two separate ideologies; they have sub groups within themselves & therefore by grouping all liberal ideas and all conservative ideas, the result will be wholly inaccurate.
Furthermore, Capitalist, Republican, Democrat & Totalitarian are not ideologies, but more key values within specific ideologies. Not ranting at you J. I'm just not a huge fan of these tests, that ask 10 or so questions and tell you what you are. It is far more accurate to read a few books or sites about the various ideologies and then draw what you agree with from there. Based on what you have previously posted, it appears that you too are in fact a neo-liberal, but I feel you possibly lean slightly further to the new conservative right in some of your ideas I'm just guessing.
Furthermore, Capitalist, Republican, Democrat & Totalitarian are not ideologies, but more key values within specific ideologies. Not ranting at you J.
I'm just not a huge fan of these tests, that ask 10 or so questions and tell you what you are. It is far more accurate to read a few books or sites about the various ideologies and then draw what you agree with from there. Based on what you have previously posted, it appears that you too are in fact a neo-liberal, but I feel you possibly lean slightly further to the new conservative right in some of your ideas I'm just guessing.Deweyrules!
Cynic
neo-liberal links with the republican parties values (or what I know of them ) Neo-Liberal is a very much conservative standpoint in terms of economy, however it believes in the primary of the individual, equality of opportunity an as little state intervention as possible. The main function of the state is to ensure that no individual impinges upon another individuals freedom or liberty, hence the quote, every man is entiltled to 'Life, liberty and property' JohnLocke; or as it was later adapted (and I feel the better version , 'We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal. That they endowed, by their creator, with certain inalienable rights. Among these are life liberty and the persuit of happiness' Tommy Jefferson.
) Neo-Liberal is a very much conservative standpoint in terms of economy, however it believes in the primary of the individual, equality of opportunity an as little state intervention as possible. The main function of the state is to ensure that no individual impinges upon another individuals freedom or liberty, hence the quote, every man is entiltled to 'Life, liberty and property' JohnLocke; or as it was later adapted (and I feel the better version , 'We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal. That they endowed, by their creator, with certain inalienable rights. Among these are life liberty and the persuit of happiness' Tommy Jefferson.Deweyrules!
Cynic
According to crappy quiz thing, I'm an economic liberal, but lie in the centre on social values
Alfista Junior
New member
Yep. The problem is that this test is not fair. I explain : the questions set don't reflect the real ideology behind the political wings, it just take examples, and mostly bad examples.
Approving or not the separation of State and Religon is not discussed since 1900 in my country. Nobody contest it whatever the political wing you support. In your country, asking for freedom is considered as a socialist view..
Same problem for environnement. Our responsabilty regarding the nature is no more debated. All parties agree on the point we have to act.. For us it's not a matter of Left or Right...The political view has nothing to do with that. But in the test if you say the nature is important, you're targeted as a socialist..
I'm under the feeling that some questions are made for fondamentalists. You have no nuances. You can respond only if you don't think, just if you use preconceived ideas.
The main problem is culture. "A person cannot be truly spiritual without regularly attending church or temple." Where can I choose the "I don't care" response?
"If countries like France are unwilling to cooperate with our military plans, we should treat them as enemies." The response would have depend on whether I've been living in the US or not. If I were in the US, watching your news on TV, being as scared as you were by Media, maybe I felt deceived about the French. Scary, isn't it ,the way we are controlled...
In this test, accepting that the country allows clever and useful people to make money is not mentioned anywhere. You just have to right to say or not that rich people are better than poor.. It's crazy..It's a nuts test
TO CONCLUDE, the test is not for foreigners. Moreover it's not really good for americans since it's weakening.
Approving or not the separation of State and Religon is not discussed since 1900 in my country. Nobody contest it whatever the political wing you support. In your country, asking for freedom is considered as a socialist view..
Same problem for environnement. Our responsabilty regarding the nature is no more debated. All parties agree on the point we have to act.. For us it's not a matter of Left or Right...The political view has nothing to do with that. But in the test if you say the nature is important, you're targeted as a socialist..
I'm under the feeling that some questions are made for fondamentalists. You have no nuances. You can respond only if you don't think, just if you use preconceived ideas.
The main problem is culture. "A person cannot be truly spiritual without regularly attending church or temple." Where can I choose the "I don't care" response?
"If countries like France are unwilling to cooperate with our military plans, we should treat them as enemies." The response would have depend on whether I've been living in the US or not. If I were in the US, watching your news on TV, being as scared as you were by Media, maybe I felt deceived about the French. Scary, isn't it ,the way we are controlled...
In this test, accepting that the country allows clever and useful people to make money is not mentioned anywhere. You just have to right to say or not that rich people are better than poor.. It's crazy..It's a nuts test
TO CONCLUDE, the test is not for foreigners. Moreover it's not really good for americans since it's weakening.
Deweyrules!
Cynic
@Alfista Junior, having appeared to agree on almost every issue on this forum, possibly due to similarity of location (and to some extent) poltical systems in our respective countries (both have handed some of their soverignty to EU) I feel I should now raise the issue of the Common Agricultural Policy and Britain's rebate. It is quite evident that if the Common Agricultural Policy, set up prior to the EEC, by France, is to remain as it is, Britain should retain there rebate; a slightly lower one I admitt. However, it is evidently more economically advantagous to France that Britain and therefore, despite putting equal amounts of money in, the output received by France as a result is far greater.
What's your oppinion (mine may have had some media bias. I should also say I think the EU is extremely important in ensuring the economic power of our continent in relation to others)
What's your oppinion (mine may have had some media bias. I should also say I think the EU is extremely important in ensuring the economic power of our continent in relation to others)
Alfista Junior
New member
Deweyrules! said:@Alfista Junior, having appeared to agree on almost every issue on this forum, possibly due to similarity of location (and to some extent) poltical systems in our respective countries (both have handed some of their soverignty to EU) I feel I should now raise the issue of the Common Agricultural Policy and Britain's rebate. It is quite evident that if the Common Agricultural Policy, set up prior to the EEC, by France, is to remain as it is, Britain should retain there rebate; a slightly lower one I admitt. However, it is evidently more economically advantagous to France that Britain and therefore, despite putting equal amounts of money in, the output received by France as a result is far greater.
What's your oppinion (mine may have had some media bias. I should also say I think the EU is extremely important in ensuring the economic power of our continent in relation to others)
I think the government is too protectionist with farmers. It's the only one job where you're sure you will have money whatever the quantities of product you sell. If a baker don't sell enough "baguettes"
to keep his business no one will help him. But that's also true that nowadays little farm can't manage because of the strong competition with bigger farms and other countries...I guess there is also a clash about the fact that the UK has a tax cut on European Taxes for a while. It was set up after the UK asks for help when they were in a plight. And they refuse to abandon it nowadays. However I don't know the whole story...Maybe you could tell me..
That's what Chirac responded when he was questionned about the CAP. (By the way thanks for spelling the whole words because I didn't get what it ias the first time.. Here it's called PAC, I should have guess though..) Actually Chirac said the UK is not in position to say anything because our economical growth is low and UK's is high and they pay less taxes..
Honestly it's just a bad clash, but that's right we're struggling not to be punished by the EU (like Germany). But this year, for the time being the growth is at the rate of 2%... Wow, it's been a while !! lol
I've also heard that the royal family who owns a lot of fields takes in a big part of the CAP benefits.. Do you know something about that?
I guess my view has some media bias too. Who has not?
Deweyrules!
Cynic
*Cough cough* erm well, the royal family may benefit from the *cough* CAP a bit. Lol, yes, you've reminded me, they makes millions out of empty land, but as far as I'm aware that's being changed by removing the former historical payment and replacing it with some new system. To be honest I'm not an expert on Europe, but I'll do a bit of reading We still seem to have some sort of agreement as well!!
We still seem to have some sort of agreement as well!!Alfista Junior
New member
New one: And how tough are the rules and the police in your country?
In France, rules weren't really strict before. Nowadays it has changed. You risk much more for things which could have seemed not condemnable before. For example, on the road 10 years ago you could drive at 200 kmh (120miles/h) without risking to lose your license.. You only had to know some friends at the police station. Nowadays, there are radars everywhere and rules are unbreakable. In other field, it's not really strict but it has changed too.
The first time I went to London, I found the police not very funny... I remember that because I was just going out of the underground station with my suitcase when I asked a policeman for help in order to find a street. The guy told me after a big blank: "First leave the road!" I thought he was going to kill me (The big hat probably impressed me)... lol. Maybe I was not lucky..
But I don't know if it's the same outside London but every street is clean, the Tube is clean. It's really impressive.
In France, rules weren't really strict before. Nowadays it has changed. You risk much more for things which could have seemed not condemnable before. For example, on the road 10 years ago you could drive at 200 kmh (120miles/h) without risking to lose your license.. You only had to know some friends at the police station. Nowadays, there are radars everywhere and rules are unbreakable. In other field, it's not really strict but it has changed too.
The first time I went to London, I found the police not very funny... I remember that because I was just going out of the underground station with my suitcase when I asked a policeman for help in order to find a street. The guy told me after a big blank: "First leave the road!" I thought he was going to kill me (The big hat probably impressed me)... lol. Maybe I was not lucky..
But I don't know if it's the same outside London but every street is clean, the Tube is clean. It's really impressive.
Deweyrules!
Cynic
London isn't a tourist friendly place, I guess becuase there are so many people become apathetic. Some areas outside London aren't particuarly nice, but you expect that in any country. I personally (not that I'm biased or anything ) think Manchester is the best city to visit, it's slightly smaller than London, far, far friendlier and cooler. There's so much to do (less site seeing though, I guess). Road laws in Britain are ridiculous, speed/ radar cameras everywhere and so many fines for parking in incorrect places. The police, usual are helpful if you want to locate a place or need help with something (well in Manchester anyway ).
) think Manchester is the best city to visit, it's slightly smaller than London, far, far friendlier and cooler. There's so much to do (less site seeing though, I guess). Road laws in Britain are ridiculous, speed/ radar cameras everywhere and so many fines for parking in incorrect places. The police, usual are helpful if you want to locate a place or need help with something (well in Manchester anyway ).Alfista Junior
New member
I don't know, I feel better in London than in Paris. (I'm gonna leave my little city for Paris in a couple of days.. and will stay the entire month over there..) I love this place (London), but I never stay more than a week over there, considering how much money you can spend in 7 days..
I will probably visit Manchester one day, but I planned to visit the south coast of Kent, either this summer or the next one.
) I love this place (London), but I never stay more than a week over there, considering how much money you can spend in 7 days.. I will probably visit Manchester one day, but I planned to visit the south coast of Kent, either this summer or the next one.
Deweyrules!
Cynic
I loved Paris when I went there, it just seemed really cool and relaxed compared to England. The south coast and Kent has some amazing countryside, so in summer it's really nice. Also to the South West, Cornwall (Newquay) in particular are amazing places.
Manchester's a nice city to visit, but the inner city outskirts can be pretty nasty, depending on the region. I live about 10 miles outside Manchester in a small (kind of old fashioned) town called Altrincham, but because of the Metro system, it only takes about 10 minutes to get into the city centre.
Just to try and keep it a bit political, I don't know what you know about the British electoral system; but basically the country is split into 646 constituencies, each with a member of parliament. The constituency votes for a candidate for their representative (Member of Parliament) each poltical party has a candidate standing for that party in each constiuency. Therefore the winning party is the one with the most MP's. Basically, the area in which I live (or constituency) is the only one of about 50 making up the Greater Manchester region that has a Conservative member of parliament- all the others are Labour. The Conservative MP also used to go to my school- so I guess that explains some of my political views
Where abouts in France do you live?
Manchester's a nice city to visit, but the inner city outskirts can be pretty nasty, depending on the region. I live about 10 miles outside Manchester in a small (kind of old fashioned) town called Altrincham, but because of the Metro system, it only takes about 10 minutes to get into the city centre.
Just to try and keep it a bit political, I don't know what you know about the British electoral system; but basically the country is split into 646 constituencies, each with a member of parliament. The constituency votes for a candidate for their representative (Member of Parliament) each poltical party has a candidate standing for that party in each constiuency. Therefore the winning party is the one with the most MP's. Basically, the area in which I live (or constituency) is the only one of about 50 making up the Greater Manchester region that has a Conservative member of parliament- all the others are Labour. The Conservative MP also used to go to my school- so I guess that explains some of my political views
Where abouts in France do you live?