Talk Elections

Based on the world's smallest political quiz @

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

no

NO

YES!

How do you indent like that?

[] with a b inside, then after the word [] with /b inside

like that

no[/no]
no[/no]

No.  We need to send military aid to countries like Israel.  Foreign aid can also be a useful tool in negotiations with other countries (it helped get the accord between Israel and Egypt).

Thanks for telling me how.

Yes.

Just say no to publicly financed imperialism!

Yes

no

It looks like this was one of my 'conservative' answers.

NO. We have a duty to poorer countries.

Besides, foreign aid means less poverty in third world countries, meaning less breeding grounds for terrorism.

NO

Spoken like a true imperialist.  Let's hope that's not the mainstream view.

Why's that imperialistic? I'm suggesting we help out poorer countries and ensure their citizens can enjoy a decent standard of living. I'm not saying we should invade them or enforce our beliefs on them...

But then I'm one of those 'one human race'-people, so if anything's it's more idealistic than imperialistic.

My stance is, with a 500B defecit and a 7T national debt, we can't be bothering with aid to other countries.  america first.

the U.S. should come first

thhat's what I said.  america first.

Foreign aid is a good way of controlling lesser countries.  It is one of our 'carrots', which we need as much as the sticks.  Lets keep it.

thats a very good point we can't afford it

The bolsheviks and nazis were very idealistic.  But idealism and imperialism are not mutually orthogonal concepts, by any means.  Invasion doesn't have to involve armies, it can involve technology, food, people, ideas, etc.  At least you choose the adjective 'poorer' rather than lesser'  I'll give you credit for being less ethnocentric than opebo.

I'm not entirely sure what you're implying with the first sentence, but I personally find the wealth gap which exists between the West and the third world to be almost perverse. (In that view, I actually find that Marx's model of the superstructure is not defunct, not by a long shot. It's simply the case that it applies no longer to individual countries or societies, but the entire world.) Besides, it cannot be a coincidence that aforementioned wealth gap is wider than ever and we are also witnessing the rise of religious extremism and groups like al-Qaeda. Redressing this imbalance, or at least aiming to redress it, would go a long to way to solve many of the world's problems, at least in my view.

If anything, it's imperialists who want to keep poorer countries poor, since it provides them with a cheap labour force and governments willing to do their bidding at the tune of the almighty dollar (or euro, or pound).

Do you also find it perverse that there's a gap between dick sizes of black, white, and asians?  The thing is, you cannot force all to be equal.  Nor should you want to.  Imperialism has many many forms.  One of the most apparently inocuous, and therefore most harmful, is that of the moralist, who is hell-bent on redistribution of wealth and power and everything else.  

Francisco Pizarro's priests were absolutely convinced that forced conversion to christianity was the right, moral thing to do to the Inca peoples.  Pizarro himself may have wanted power and wealth, but many were appaled at the lack of 'civilization' among indigeneous peoples, and swore to 'help' them.  This is a dangerous attitude.

As for idealism.  It is worse even than imperialism.  But the two do not necessarily show a correlation.  That was my point in the first sentence.

That's a flawed comparison, since there is hardly anything natural about inequality of wealth.

 

It's not a question of 'forcing everyone to be equal', or suggesting that third world countries are given the exact same share as industrialised nations, that's simply misreading my statement. It's possible that I'm expressing myself in a clumsy manner, though I was simply stating a viewpoint that justifies the existence of state-sponsered foreign aid; as opposed to abolishing the whole thing and letting people in the third world fend for themselves, when there already are trade tarriffs and so forth in place which contribute to the extreme poverty some of these countries are finding themselves under. Perhaps repealing these tarriffs would help, but, hey, the more the merrier.


I'm not sure how you can link that to anything I've said since my views are not about enforcing ideals or beliefs. The Inca chose their religion, whereas hardly anyone, be it here or abroad, actively chooses to live in poverty.


But surely there is also a pragmatic element to noticing the link between third world poverty and the rise of Al-Qaeda?

The reason I described my viewpoint as 'idealistic', was because I realised that there is an impractical element to it, not because I want to enforce it on all and sundry. Let's just say I have a crap grasp of semantics.

okay, I wasn't looking for an argument.  Or maybe I was.  But yes there's a darwinistic quality to the unequal distribution of wealth.  Even within a subgroup of species, this uneven distribution plays out well, and left on its own guarantees success via natural selection.  Leftism destroys this balance.  It's very much like the invention of corrective lenses, as we have discussed before.

Secondly, all my analogies are flawed.  It is intentional.  This is how I find out whether anyone is paying attention.  Otherwise I'd be just another dull troll.

I am unaware of any correlation between poverty rates and the rise of religious fundamentalism.  I'm not even sure I know what religious fundamentalism means.  But that doesn't mean the link doesn't exist, just that I'm not aware of it.

I'm sure you have no intention of enforcing any beliefs, so I chose a bad example with the Spanish Conquistadors.  But the suggestion that we 'help' others has been made very often in the past, and any serious reading of the history of nations would render the astute student wary of such suggestions.

Idealism has caused great hardship.  It has also built great institutions.  I wouldn't argue that it contains an element of impracticality, which is neither bad nor good.  I just wanted to point to some of the worst examples of idealism I could, specifically, in order to quell any notion of holding idealism up as a principle to be cherished.

Ultimately I tend to overreact toward leftist statements, as I too was raised to believe that the GOP was basically a bunch of greedy amoral capitalist pigs.  As an adult, I have found that private charities and private aid, often from Republicans, have done more good than harm.  Now I consider it a personal quest to dispel the notion that Republicans just want to burn your house down, pollute the air and water, force people into grueling labor, and get richer on the backs of poor uneducated fools.

The wealth gap is highly exaggerated by the exchange rate and other factors.  In terms of purchasing price index and quality of life, the 'third world' is not as bad off as you seem to think.  They suffer more from their oppressive governments - Middle East and Africa - than they do simply from poverty.  Where the government's are more benign - parts of Asia and Latin America - its not soo bad.  Besides, it has nothing whatever to do with us in the 'rich' countries.

Heck, I'd be lying if I said I didn't hold the odd prejudice against conservatives myself, which tend to quell up from time to time, but I'm young so give me some time. :) I guess people automatically become more objective about politics as they grow older, and I'm definitely far more moderate than I used to be. At the end of the day both sides of the political divide tend to hold unfair views of each other when both just want to the best for everyone.

Yeah, they do. Apart from Republicans of course, who are all a bunch of greedy amoral capitalist pigs. ;)

I love how all the "liberals" oppose foreign aid, saying we can't afford it.  We spend only $15 billion in aid a year.  We spend $450 billion on Social Security and if anyone proposed cutting that, you would all scream like banshees.

Come on. What does defense cost? Etc. Maybe they WANT social security? :P

I am going to have to say NO

But, we can't use this foreign aid for political reason.

I am for foreign aid, when our own country is healthy enough.

I am for helping others grow, but we need to put ourselves first.

So liberals don't want foreign aid then?  Why don't they just say that?  Why the facade of practicality?  I laways thought liberals were into foreign aid/peace corps, type stuff.

what liberals are you talking about? Those on this Forum? Because actually a lot people here from all sides are FOR foreign aid.

We should halt the give a way to anti-American countries.

White Man's Burden.

NO. Remember Marshall's aid.

I believe we have an imperative duty to fund foreign aid. The problems of nations abroad are too dramatic to comprehend, and being parsimonious with foreign aid could be nothing short of deadly.

We need to focus our efforts on three areas: food distribution, healthcare and disease prevention, and family planning.

The first two are self-explanatory, but the third requires some clarification. I am in favor of a broad program of family planning, but such a program must reflect the cultural sensibilities of poor nations. We cannot impose the virtue of family limitation on those who derive their primary joy and satisfaction in life from their families. Along with contraception and abortion, we must make infertility services available. I am concerned that this is part of a broader pattern: the West's rejection of its own fertility. Do we in the West hate our children? If we protest in horror that we do not, why do we stifle them, oppress them, and segregate them until they in turn reject us in our old age? That is why we so often need nursing homes, and retirement villages, because there is no reciprocal and continuous pattern of family love in the wealthy nations. The birth of an unwanted child is a tragedy for all involved, but I daresay it happens more frequently in our affluent West than in the hovels of Africa and Asia. In short, we cannot impose this program blindly. We cannot allow our mistrust and eugenic zeal towards the world's poor allow us to make the intimate decisions that are theirs alone ours.

Very good point.

What? ALL foreign aid? Are you kidding? Of course not. :D

I think I may have voted maybe.  In general, and on principle, I strongly oppose foreign intervention by the US government, including public funding of imperialistic projects.  This was Washington's advice.  It was ignored, for the most part, like the rest of his excellent advice.  But there has been an exception or two.  For example, after the recent earthquake in Iran I was glad to learn my government was generous enough and willing to shell out some dollars to help those people.

Bah, you soft-hearted liberal, you! ;)

I don't buy all this "cultural imperialism" nonsense for a minute.  The United States is not directly ruling other countries, nor are we extracting tribute, nor are we enslaving their people, nor are we demanding allegiance, nor are we robbing them of their resources.  No one is forcing people around the world to use cellphones, eat at McDonalds, or adopt any other nasty Western behavior.  If they do so, that is their choice.

We're helping the developing world by providing aid, development, and jobs.  I would hardly call it Imperialism.

alright.  we are not directly ruling any country except about 60% of what used to be Mexico, a third of what used to be France, a quarter of what used to be England, and a good bit of what once was Spain.  But why quibble?  Extracting tribute?!  Surely, the blood and oil soaked deserts of mesopotamia represent some tribute.  Enslaving?  No.  not enslaving, liberating.  I would not argue that point.  Not demanding allegiance?  That is a stretch, and depends on your definition of 'demanding allegiance'  The Hugo Chavez fiasco might not have been demanding allegiance, but it certainly offered reward for getting on the right side.  Schroder came crawling on his knees to Washington to try to get some of those exclusive contracts, not because of any demand, I'll allow, but out of a sense of misplaced prioities, to be sure.  We can go on and on about demanding allegiances, but that would be twisting the facts.  As for robbing resources.  I agree with you on that one, unlike other empires in the past, we do not rob.  We purchase.  Suckers walk, money talks.  That is the american way of empire.  Nor do I buy into Mohammed Atta's inflammatory description of 'McEgypt' in his call to the faithful, but the case can certainly be made for exportation of culture.  (which is at the heart of imperialism, in my opinion)

I vote for a Republic, if given a choice.